this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
124 points (99.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4138 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
 
all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Course they are. It won't net them a single Republican vote, but they get to experience the sheer joy of throwing a vulnerable population under the bus.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I have the impression quite a few Democratic voters are a bit anti-immigrant too.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't have the numbers, but to many Democrat voters lax immigration policy and generally better treatment of immigrants is the reason they vote democrat. The Dems are losing a good amount of public goodwill by doing this.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't want lax immigration policies. I want consistant immigration policies. I like the crack down on businesses taking advantage of illegal immigration and supporting legal methods.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean sure, but this was supposed to be one of the core differences between Democrats and Republicans that the Dems just threw in the trash, along with the voters this difference got them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think they threw it in the trash just because its not the only thing they do. Its a large and complex issue. Its like I understand even border security actions but walls are stupid and problematic and make no sense given modern times. Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

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

Now granted the article is about rhetoric but I expect them to do the same things we have seen them do in the past which has largely been effective.

I mean the Biden administration signaled a massive shift from what they've been doing in the past, which is what I was referring to by lax policies, and Harris went further than that to get Republican voters' support.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

This shift is because we need the GOP to vote for anything that gets passed. They will not vote for a pathway to citizenship. They will not vote to protect DACA recipients. They will not vote to do the things that actually need to be done, that Democrats have proposed. So the only thing leftover is enforcement measures, some of which are still needed.

Doing nothing is acceptable to the GOP and they have the votes to make that happen. We need to get rid of them, that's the solution here.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Nobody I know is asking for lax immigration policies. We want more judges to process the cases in a timely manner. We want migrants to be treated humanely during that process - given shelter, care, and not separated from their children. We want border control to have the resources necessary to deter unauthorized entry, and ensure authorized entry is available to those who need it.

These are not radical desires, it's about fixing the completely overwhelmed systems already in place. It should not take years to determine if someone was qualified to enter.

Or, we can go with trump's approach of denying everyone entry by default, detaining and separating their families, and sorting out the details never.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

No doubt it is for many. They're probably going to vote Democrat even if they find the candidate's stance on immigration unreasonably harsh because [insert long rant about plurality voting and the two-party system].

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Sure but anyone who votes based on their hatred for immigrants will always go Republican simply because they are more openly fascistic on this issue.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

When democrats go to the right on issues, they don't attract republican voters. What happens instead is that republicans go even farther right in order to differentiate themselves from democrats.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That only makes sense if you view the electorate as though on a linear spectrum (and are standing squarely on "the left"). If you view it more like this, then it helps explain phenomena like this where ~15% of moderate/liberal Republicans routinely vote for Democrats, as opposed to ~7% of conservative/moderate Democrats going the other direction. It also helps explain issues where Trump outflanks Democrats on the left, which tends to attract Sanders-Trump voters.

edit: I'll add that the downvoting on perfectly matter-of-fact comments in this thread (and quite frankly, most others on Lemmy/Reddit) is a really crisp display of the left's toxic intolerance that Trump so readily and effectively leverages with middle America. Hammer that button, folks. In an infinitesimal way you're proving Trump right every time you do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

Left, Left...

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How about the crack down on the domestic terrorists

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Best we can do is laundering the far-right narrative that there is a crisis at the border and advocating for the far-right border bill that Republicans want.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yep and even maintaining this appearance - there's still a large chance they won't pull in enough red voters to beat Trump.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The idea that any one is switching tides in an environment this polarized is idiotic.

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

Yeah but the other party are fascists so I’m still gonna vote for them

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago

Why are you even using that word if it's not attached to actions like this

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago

Rolling Stone - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Rolling Stone:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council).
Wiki: unreliable - According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011 (inclusive), though it must be borne in mind that this date is an estimate and not a definitive cutoff, as the deterioration of journalistic practices happened gradually. Some editors have said that low-quality reporting also appeared in some preceding years, but a specific date after which the articles are considered generally unreliable has not been proposed. Previous consensus was that Rolling Stone was generally reliable for political and societal topics before 2011. Most editors say that Rolling Stone is a partisan source in the field of politics, and that their statements in this field should be attributed. Moreover, medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication.
Wiki: unreliable - There is unanimous consensus among editors that Culture Council articles (of URL form rollingstone.com/culture-council/*) are self-published sources and are, in most aspects, equivalent to Forbes and HuffPost contributors. Editors, however, have also expressed concern that at least some of the content published is promotional and thus not usable. Editors should thus determine on a case-by-case basis whether the opinions published there are independent and also if they constitute due weight. Usage of these sources for third-party claims in biographies of living persons as well as medical or scientific claims is not allowed.


MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/democrats-border-crackdown-harris-biden-trump-election-2024-1235146918/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support