192
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
192 points (86.6% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3922 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ugh... and he was doing so well...
I'm not american, but isn't calling yourself not progressive kinda... Shit? Why would you ever say that you don't like progress?
He didn’t say that. He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.
Whoever wrote the article is trying to speak on behalf of an entire political group called “Progressives” by claiming everyone in the group came to a unanimous decision to not discuss immigration (this isn’t true).
So the writer of the article is claiming Fetterman isn’t a part of the group of Progressives because Fetterman is willing to do his job by being diplomatic.
The piece literally quotes Fetterman saying that he is not a progressive. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Then you didn’t read the article because he never said “I don’t like progress”
What you think I’m saying: ‘he didn’t say “I’m not a progressive”’
What BruceTwarzan said: “Why would you ever say that you don't like progress?”
I said: “he didn’t say that” (he didn’t say “I don’t like progress”)
"Let's hear the literal fascists who compare even legal immigrants to vermin and invading armies out. I'm sure they'll be willing to reach a reasonable compromise" 🙄
You can’t just throw a temper tantrum and expect to get your way. Diplomacy is required to actually get things done.
Let me know when you see Republicans try any. I haven't seen it during my lifetime, but hey, there's always this time 🙄
Who said anything about a temper tantrum? Could you please try and refrain from using ridiculous pro-capitulation strawmen?
Calmly refusing to negotiate with fascists about one of their favorite "if we give an inch, we're traitors" issues because you know nothing good will come from it isn't having a temper tantrum. It's being realistic.
So you don’t think our politicians should ever be diplomatic or just when on the subject of immigration reform?
I don't think politicians should grandstand for cheap points about good faith negotiations with domestic terrorists whose re-election depends on negotiating in bad faith or not negotiating at all.
I wouldn't brag about negotiating with cats about them going vegan either, and that would have a BETTER chance of bearing fruit.
So regardless of the subject you want our government in gridlock and our politicians to not get anything done. Got it.
Nope. Please pack your ridiculous strawmen away. You're sounding mighty Republican with your bad faith arguments.
How is that a strawman?
How is it NOT a strawman to pretend that I ever advocated for government gridlock?
If politicians don’t negotiate across the aisle when majorities in Congress are slim then nothing will get done.
Did you or did you not imply that Fetterman shouldn’t negotiate?
I said that nothing good could come from pretending to negotiate immigration with radically anti-immigrant fascists who aren't even PRETENDING to negotiate in good faith.
Three things can result:
No changes
Changes for the worse and nothing else (by far the most likely)
Tiny changes for the better on one or two very specific things in exchange for massive systemic change for the worse.
You're pretending that the GOP is a normal and legitimate political party rather than a fundamentally dishonest fascist movement.
Is your name Neville? Because you're being very Chamberlain right now
So again, you’re saying he shouldn’t negotiate with republicans which will result in nothing getting done.
How is what I said a strawman?
By inferring that what I want is "nothing getting done", when in reality I've been very clear that what I want is for things to not get worse.
When you give concessions to fascists, things get worse. STOP pretending that the GOP is a legitimate party operating in good faith.
The GOP as a party supports fascism yes. But individual members of Congress are on a spectrum and can be influenced to vote in our best interests.
That’s why there are almost always some members that aren’t voting along their party lines. It’s happened like this since the inception of our government.
That’s why diplomacy is important.
Just look at how democrats won concessions from the house on the spending bill recently and made republicans look stupid in the process.
That happened because of diplomacy. Your approach would’ve resulted in a government shutdown instead.
If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.
Name one time since 2016 that anything good came from negotiating with the GOP on immigration. Hell, name one time in this MILLENNIUM.
Anything even resembling change for the better on immigration being amongst the exceptions that makes your "almost" necessary.
Spending is not the same thing as immigration. While fascists don't like social programs that benefit those who need help, they don't have an automatic visceral fear and hatred of them like they do with immigrants.
As an aside, they were already doing that themselves
No. The Republicans hold the federal government hostage every time raising the debt ceiling comes up. It's as much part of what they do as demagougery in general is.
Letting them persecute and otherwise abuse immigrants more or less doesn't change that. It just lets them persecute and otherwise abuse immigrants more.
The idea is to negotiate in good faith to show that is our stance and not give in to bad faith negotiations.
If we don’t negotiate at all then there’s no way forward.
Not true. If your ideas are good enough and you show that you're not too weak and/or corrupt to implement them, you get big enough majorities to bypass the GOP completely, which you should then do.
It's worse to negotiate in good faith with those that are negotiating in bad faith than to not negotiate at all, since those negotiating in bad faith have no reason to give any concessions and every reason to demand concessions from their opposition.
Same goes for arguing I'm good faith with people who are either arguing in bad faith or basing their entire argument on a commonly believed false premise.
So I'm gonna let you go gaslight someone else now. Have the day you deserve.
You’re ignoring the optics of not negotiating. This is politics. How you present yourself impacts voters’ opinions.
No one is gaslighting or making strawman arguments or any other psych buzzwords over here.
You have a good one too. I’m glad the internet allows us to have these conversations because I think it is important to have discorse with people of opposing views.
Because two comments back you literally said it was non negotiable. What the ever fuck do you want to happen?
I didn't say it was non-negotiable, I said that Republicans have no willingness to negotiate in good faith and as such, nothing good comes from pretending that they will.
Don't misquote me to me. It confirms what I and anyone else reading already suspected: that you're either being dishonest or having trouble understanding plain English.
Ok let's paint all the republicans as one monolithic fascist block. I'll grant you that. What's next? What do you want to happen?
This isn't a let's hash out an immigration deal where both sides get a little of what they want regarding immigration reform, it's submitting to hostage takers for an entirely unrelated issue that shouldn't really be partisan.
Progressive is often used as a blanket term that basically means that you are farther left than the Democratic party. Not that he doesn't like progress, just that he is not pursuing the end of capitalism or something in that direction if even slightly.
To be fair, Fetterman is eager to progress genocide.
Progressives are basically the left wing of the neoliberal consensus but not "left" if we're talking like actual left ideologies ie socialism.
I always understood it otherwise, that progressive was more to the left, outside that neoliberal democrat stance. But these things change over time and I may have always just misunderstood.
Leftists generally call themselves leftists. Progressives are usually Social Democrats, ie Scandinavian Capitalism.
"Progressive" is a faction of Democrats. They aren't the only people that support progress.
I don't consider myself a progressive, because I disagree with about 30% (in very ballpark terms) of current progressive policy choices. It's not hard to imagine Fetterman feels similarly.
I absolutely disagree with Fetterman that immigration should be curtailed at all - Democrats are not a monolith. Most Democrat representatives disagree with some policy or other.
Yeah, there are people to their left.
There are also people to their, uh, whichever direction the anti-authoritarian axis is.
Exactly I don't consider myself a progressive either for similar reasons and I don't agree with the notion of progress they seem to believe in. I'm a materialist and believe progress is contingent on economic and material conditions and that people's notions of progress are relative to that. "Progress" begs the question progress to what and for them it's often progress in a capitalist individualist sense, where more of the best people get the best stuff. Progress to them would be like more minorities represented in executive level careers but progress to me would mean the system that creates these disparities doesn't exist. Progressives think capitalism can be redeemed by appealing to its own morality basically.
https://youtu.be/kOk05dKl8-c?si=gXlco_tfUU9fmiPm
It is a label that is applied to a small group of democrats only, as far as I understand.
It's all just labels, it's not really the etemology of the word that people care about, but the ideas it represents. The opposite of progressive is conservative. I think if you were to ask anyone in particular, they would say that they'd like to progress some things and conserve others. It's just the label for who tends to do more of each. So it's less about saying your not "for progress" and more about showing what ideas you align with. And many conservatives wouldn't call progressive ideas "progress" if they were implemented; they think it'd be bad for society. So it's all just words at the end of the day to signify what ideas you align with