this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
345 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19099 readers
3530 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
 

The White House statement comes after a week of frantic negotiations in the Senate.

President Joe Biden on Friday urged Congress to pass a bipartisan bill to address the immigration crisis at the nation’s southern border, saying he would shut down the border the day the bill became law.

“What’s been negotiated would — if passed into law — be the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border we’ve ever had in our country,” Biden said in a statement. “It would give me, as President, a new emergency authority to shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. And if given that authority, I would use it the day I sign the bill into law.”

Biden’s Friday evening statement resembles a ramping up in rhetoric for the administration, placing the president philosophically in the camp arguing that the border may hit a point where closure is needed. The White House’s decision to have Biden weigh in also speaks to the delicate nature of the dealmaking, and the urgency facing his administration to take action on the border — particularly during an election year, when Republicans have used the issue to rally their base.

The president is also daring Republicans to reject the deal as it faces a make-or-break moment amid GOP fissures.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ensign_Crab 87 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why do Democrats keep trying to appease Fascists?

[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Because this will undercut the only politically popular Republican position, which Republicans are currently wielding as a cudgel against the Biden Administration. In the process, Republicans are treating the people crossing the border worse and worse, increasing human suffering. If Biden can take control of the narrative of the border, there is a real possibility he can start to make things better and decrease human suffering.

[–] Ensign_Crab 13 points 9 months ago (14 children)

If Biden can take control of the narrative of the border, there is a real possibility he can start to make things better and decrease human suffering.

There's a possibility he can, but no possibility he will.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

"Just a few hundreds more people in concentration camps and thousands more deported, and we can finally stop the Republicans from imprisoning and deporting immigrants and refugees!"

Democrats having a normal one about human rights, eh?

Edit: This may be a good place to remind everyone that the people we're de facto targeting with these policies are people with indigenous roots. This can and should be interpreted through the lens of colonialism and our ongoing genocide against Native groups.

Edit 2: Oh boy I cannot believe I have to say this, but these people with indigenous roots are not limited to Mexico and Central America. Does anyone know anything about history here?? My God, I'd assume if one is going to comment that one would at least have the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Edit 3: And to the people who think it's some kinda "gotcha" to point out that I'm disengaging from people who are shit-deep in the anti-immigrant hysteria, you got me. Nearly half my family are immigrants, some of whom have been detained and/or deported by our racist border policy, and I live surrounded by batshit conservatives. So yes, this is a sensitive and personal issue to me. If I wanted to talk to people like that, I'd go to the gas station or bar. Lemmy is my opportunity to talk to people who at the bare minimum agree on certain fundamental ideals, an opportunity I don't have much in real life. I will block and report you for name calling or other uncivilized attacks on my character.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

you're the hero we need

[–] lennybird -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What, in the purview of an election year (and risk of putting someone obviously orders-of-magnitude worse for such people), with the right-wing border propaganda resonating with many voters, with GOP border states that don't actually want to work with Biden, and with a divided Congress, do you want Biden to do?

It's one thing to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery, but another to look at the pragmatic reality and actual viable options versus consequences.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Treating people's lives like political pawns in a campaign is NOT okay. Stop trying to normalize this shit.

Don't ever speak to me again. Enabling this shit is a horrible thing to do to people. Let's put you in a camp or send you into a violent situation and see how much you like it. "BuT iT's ElEcTiOn YeAr" I don't care

[–] lennybird 9 points 9 months ago (20 children)

I say again since you're obviously deflecting: It’s one thing to throw peanuts from the peanut gallery, but another to look at the pragmatic reality and actual viable options versus consequences.

You can live with your idealistic pyrrhic victory while you naively reject the reality of the political consequences and put someone far worse in power. But you do you, buddy.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

I wish we could be idealistic, but the reality is that too many people are under informed, under educated, or otherwise trained to blame the country's problems on minorities.

The idealists in this thread thinking "let's say the right thing now, let the bad guys take over, then we'll just have a little 'ol revolution" have their heads up their asses. They need to take a serious look at the middle east and their royals in golden palaces. That is the Republican end game.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

People like them have no actual solution, they just like screaming that you're wrong while they're right.

It's almost like dealing with a MAGAt.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To have a solution, you first must have a problem. This isn't one. It's only a problem for racists.

[–] lennybird -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Oh, how awfully convenient!

But true, it's better defined as a dilemma. The dichotomy between doing nothing because one's hands are tied, or investing in a move that gives you power to address it down the road.

... You know... By not handing the keys back to the real racist.

But some people don't think that many chess moves ahead, I guess.

[–] lennybird -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Frankly it makes me wonder if they are. Unfortunately we know it's a common tactic for them to pretend they're leftist and wedge-drive to sow apathy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Feel free to check my post history and you’ll see when I turned

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phegan 17 points 9 months ago

Because the both answer to the same corporate overlords