politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Oh I get it. You literally can't read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.
https://dondavis.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-conservatives
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill
Literally can do this all day. You want me to go on? Probably no since you're not gonna read any of that anyways or pretend those things don't actually say what they say. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative).
Lol, desperate, desperate, desperate. That's not that I said and that's not why they killed it. The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house. As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn't want to give Democrats a "win". Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the "best one" they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they're fascists. But it doesn't change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.
So she didn't substantively say what you're straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.
So "open ended" that she actually said nothing of substance. I've been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I've EVER seen. It's a yes or no question and she refused to answer.
She didn't say no. But that's not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. "I support M4A") When you don't support something you weasel out of it. ("Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors"). That's how politics works and only a literal child doesn't understand that.
Because it was irrelevant and you were rambling. I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow and you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there's so many other places in this conversation that you're also making stuff up that need to be addressed.
Bro they don't want any of Kamalas policies either! That's the point. If you want ANY chance of getting these people out of the grasp of fascist Trumpian progapanda you need to.... articulate. a. clear. alternate. vision. to. fascism. You are NEVER going to win them over by doing fascism lite. You are never going to win them over by running to the right - because the fascists can always just move more right. You will never win them over with feckless centrism. You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong. If you are not confronting the MORAL implications of fascism because you are agreeing with the base premises you are going to lose.
Again, I personally am not voting for Kamala because our election system is a joke and I live in a safe blue state and do not have to vote for her. I have not said anything about telling anyone else how to vote - I can't speak to anyone else's personal situation.
Do you not know how arguments work? Do you know where you are right now? What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me. I am arguing the things to you that I believe are correct. Because that's how arguments work. Did you expect me to come out here and argue for the opposite of what I believe?
Yes, it's the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don't believe the same which is why you're arguing something different. That's how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it's back....
You appear to be conflating bills.
HR 3602, the focus of your first 2 quote blocks AND your first link is a REPUBLICAN bill. It was shot down overwhelmingly by democrats. Even Jerry Nadler, the guy your 2nd quote mentions, is a Democrat badmouthing the bill. (You conveniently cut right through the part of the text that said he was a Dem, which could've clued you in that this doesn't back you.)
HR 3602 IS a clone of HR2, the Republican immigration proposal from last year, but it's the wrong bill. The bipartisan border bill was HR815, before the border provisions were ripped out. BEFORE that happened, your very own 2nd link had this to say about the bill's substance:
Your "thenation" quote acknowledges that it is, in fact, written in part by Republicans. But it otherwise doesn't really get into policy details so as far as I'm concerned it's just prose.
And your "americanimmigrationcouncil" quote conveniently leaves out the very next sentences: "It would expand additional visas and future green card availability and offer a pathway to citizenship to Afghans, while also significantly increasing detention capacity. It is a mixed bag." I wouldn't interpret "mixed bag" to mean "right of fascism".
What you said was it's "right of fascists". To me "right of fascists" either means there're Republicans saying "whoa, this might be too extreme" or it means that comparing the democratic proposal and the republican proposal, the democratic proposal goes further right. In this case, HR2 is the republican proposal, HR815 was the bipartisan proposal. Can you come up with substantive differences where HR815 is MORE radical? If not, what you meant by your exaggeration doesn't matter, it's still an exaggeration.
We agree that Democrats moved right on immigration. But that'd necessarily mean that this proposal is to the right of previous compromises made in the House. Doesn't mean "to the right of fascists".
Yes
Slow down a sec. "Every" Republican said it gave them "everything they wanted and more"? Again, you're exaggerating. Yes, "some" Republicans admitted that it was 'the toughest deal they were gonna get', but that just means it was 'the best compromise Dems were willing to give'. (Like your own 2 links said, the substance of the bill contained stuff obviously to the left of Republicans.) From my POV, this was 2 parties meeting in the middle, closer to the right than democrats have ever gone, but still the middle.
Lol, you don't have to make it a big deal, just proof-watch your own stuff next time
Firstly, when you have to say you've been "arguing with people on the internet for decades", either that's true and...something you should reflect on, or you're just a kid lying about his/her age.
Secondly: again, her answer was “that is a decision that doctors will make in terms of what is medically necessary. I'm not going to put myself in a position of a doctor” How is that not equivalent to “we shouldn't be restricting access to gender-affirming care”, gender-affirming care being the specific focus of the question she was asked?
Yay! We agree!
Disagree with your analogue. The real question/answer is closer to "Broadly speaking, do you support abortion" - "Well, I belive that Americans should be able to have that conversation with their doctors, and I shouldn't have a say in that". I'm personally fine with that answer to that question.
No, you said we should be "taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is". And the most appropriate action combat a threat of that magnitude is to shut off fossil fuels tomorrow. But that's obviously not pracical, because it can lead to backlash and the US doubling down harder on fossil fuels. So the point is: where do we draw the line between urgent climate action and practical, long-term climate action?
"get big mad about"? Kinda outting yourself further as a kid there, lol
I feel like we're going back and forth as far as the next paragraph is concerned, except for this nugget:
I agree with you on that. I think that's what many of those people need - someone to confront them with patience and empathy, who can slowly deradicalize them over time. But it's not Harris' job to deradicalize them, or to show them an "alternate worldview", that's the job of a Trump supporter's loved ones. Harris' first job is to win the election, no matter what she needs to say ('we'll be tougher on immigration going forward') or not say ('we're gonna overhaul the courts'). Her second job is to do the things that need to be done as president. And if Harris gets elected and she neither does anything about the courts, nor does she do anything about the filibuster by end of 2028, then you'll have been right to suspect her of not being "THAT strong" on abortion. But no matter what she says now, we simply won't know that until end-of-term.
Yes, a discussion between you and me...that started with being about Trump supporters. The beliefs that Trump supporters have is relevant to a discussion about Trump supporters.
Not saying I don't want her to BE a progressive candidate. I'm saying it's foolish for her to campaign like she's the polar opposite of Trump. I don't really care how she campaigns, as long as her campaign sits literally anywhere on the spectrum between "unabashedly socialist/communist" and "a little left-of-center". I think she's closer to left of that spectrum than you'll admit, but regardless of how she actually leans, I don't think it's wise for her to campaign to the left side of that spectrum - there are MILLIONS of centrists looking for an excuse not to vote for Trump, and there are WAY MORE of them than progressives who will ONLY vote for her if she campaigns like a radical leftist.
The harder you go on the insults, and the exaggerations, the more convincing it is that you're either too chronically online for your own good, or a kid, or both.
But I'm actually not saying those things to insult you, just trying to point out behaviors that you should consider toning down on. I'm sure flaming can be fun, but it's not very good for your own mental health - it can degrade your ability to empathize and affect your real life relationships more than you might think.
I know I'm just a random internet stranger...but just food for thought.