this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
174 points (87.2% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4759 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 171 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Being a shill for the Israeli apartheid regime is the LEAST "maverick" thing you can possibly do in American politics.

To break with the left to join everyone else in enabling genocide isn't a brave and principled stand. It's ignorance at best, but more likely morally bankrupt cowardice.

Go home NBC, you're drunk on neoliberal gaslighting. Again.

[–] Aabbcc@lemm.ee 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Morally bankrupt, fiscally wealthy

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

Yeah, that's usually how it be in Congress 😮‍💨

[–] Veedem@lemmy.world 129 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Having a conversation about immigration isn’t a bad thing. Going in to that conversation looking to shove your view points down the others side throat IS a bad thing.

The reality is that we need immigrants to fill a ton of holes in our workforce but we also need to fix the system to allow legal immigration to be an easier process and to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

I don’t have the answers, but I know the problems exist and there are much smarter people who could help get ideas moving if the ideologues would get out of the way.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 72 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Yeah, most people against illegal immigration have no idea how arduous and expensive the process actually is. It's not as simple as going to the border and saying, "One greencard please."

I'm against illegal immigration, but the solution I'd like to see is a more streamlined process so people wouldn't need to pay coyotes to smuggle them across with no guarantee they'd even survive the trip.

If they want to come be productive members of society, why stop them?

[–] Poggervania@kbin.social 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because America, by large, has been built upon immigrants coming over and shutting the door behind them so others can’t get their success.

We’ve done it as English colonists, we’ve done it during the Industrial Revolution, we’ve done it in the early 1900s, and we’re doing it now. It’s sadly a trend that we, as a country, never grew out of.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 9 months ago

One point I’ve brought up successfully with a Trumpy acquaintance has been how big Agri business relies so much on illegal workers (throw child labor in there too when they talk about pedos). I ask him why if politicians complain so much, why didn’t they really do anything to stop the demand for undocumented workers when they had the power? Then ask him if he likes cheap fruit and chicken, and how Tyson and Dole would have to double or triple the prices of it all if they paid a fair wage.

Unfortunately, He usually shuts up and says Hunter probably cashed in on it too or some other bullshit, but I can see some gears grinding over when it hits him at first.

[–] squiblet@kbin.social 21 points 9 months ago

It's a ridiculous process to get a work visa even for skilled and educated people with money. I had a gf who had a PhD in material science with a wealthy family. She was working at a National Lab and was worried if she didn't get a permanent position there, she'd be scrambling to find a job that would give her an extension or she'd have to move back to Europe.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Apparently it used to be easier to get seasonal work permits for Mexicans wishing to work in the US, and it was common for workers to go back to Mexico after the work season. Most did not want to permanently move to the US, but preferred to return to stay with their families. Those visas were curtailed under Reagan, so they became much harder to obtain. Crossing back to Mexico became harder, so now more just cross the border and then never return. If we still had a reasonable system in place to allow temporary workers in, I’m sure we’d see less illegal crossings.

[–] runner@mastodon.world 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

@phoneymouse @EatYouWell@lemmy.worl Grew up on a small family farm in San Joaquin Valley. Annually we hired the same "braceros" who migrated with the crops for harvest. Why did Reagan stop this?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We need immigrants because they make the nation better, not to "fix holes" in the workforce. They're people. Let's talk about them like they deserve humanity.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 32 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It's not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they're necessary. It seems like you're just looking for offense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheCrispyDud@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Man I've said this over and over again. If illegal immigration is such a problem take a damn look at your system. My dad just thinks I'm some crazy liberal though for suggesting it. I live in a border state and I've been hearing the same empty talking points since I was a child.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 60 points 9 months ago

Politician uses leftists to get elected, immediately backs off leftism once in office.

"Maverick" my ass. This isn't a break from the left, it is a stomping down of the coalition that already had to fight tooth and nail against the Democratic Party pushing Conor Lamb.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 55 points 9 months ago (1 children)

A mAvEriCk SiDe

he's not some sort of independent thinker charting his own way through the murky waters of american politics, he's bought and paid for with a quarter million dollars of Israeli lobbyist money. I used to believe in Fetterman. I walked picket lines with him in Pittsburgh. I campaigned to help him and Tom Wolf into the governor's mansion in PA. I see this as a betrayal and he'll get neither a vote nor a kind word from me for the rest of his career.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wait, so you agree with him so much on most issues that you campaigned for him, but disagree with him on a couple of difficult hot-button issues, and so you will never have another kind word for him? This kind of hyper-polarization from one extreme of support to complete vilification is what is wrong with American politics. Politics equals compromise, not going balls-out to completely crush anyone who is slightly further left or right of your position.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Yep, I'm a single issue voter when it comes to genocide.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 48 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's unsurprising, especially since even legitimate leftists often balk at immigration due to the rampant myths around it. Still an obvious and better choice than Oz, or any Republican, and important blueprint for outreach to actual moderates.

God only knows how he can support Israel on moral grounds while being in a position where he has access and time to study the issue, though. Pre-existing biases, one supposes.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (13 children)

Pre-existing biases, one supposes.

Not to mention the AIPAC campaign funding that would suddenly dry up. It amazes me how many of our elected leaders are being paid off by a foreign government

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago (7 children)

The Philly suburbs have a pretty influential Jewish population. Nothing like NYC, of course, but they're politically active and probably donate a lot of money.

But Fetterman has also tried very hard to listen to everyone in the state. He did a tour of all of the counties - even blood red places like Clearfield* and Perry - to get people's impressions on marijuana legalization. It's one thing I respect him for.

Sadly, I disagree with most of my fellow state citizens on this issue so I have to go along with the majority and watch children die.

Yay democracy.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The Philly suburbs have a pretty influential Jewish population. Nothing like NYC, of course, but they’re politically active and probably donate a lot of money.

I would very much like to think that "Jewish" and "supportive of Israel's genocidal tactics" are much less synonymous than this comment assumes.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

American Jews, in fact, are more likely to be friendly to the cause of Palestinian independence and dignity than the general American population.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

Considering how many evangelical Christians are Zionists because they want to trigger the End Times and get Raptured, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago

Yes, and thank you for mentioning that. A lot of my friends from high school are Jewish and they taught me that it was possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. They would hate being lumped in with those who support these actions, at least a few of them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 30 points 9 months ago

What happened to you, Fetterman. You used to be cool.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ugh... and he was doing so well...

[–] BruceTwarzen@kbin.social 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm not american, but isn't calling yourself not progressive kinda... Shit? Why would you ever say that you don't like progress?

[–] UsernameHere@lemmings.world 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The piece literally quotes Fetterman saying that he is not a progressive. Not sure what you’re talking about.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (21 children)

He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.

"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" 🙄

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Typical neoliberal scumbag. Buddy up to the left to get elected then as soon as you're on the inside and have the power to actually chnge something, unleash your inner cliche villain and start loudly supporting the worst things you possibly can.

[–] KonalaKoala@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And I was beginning to wonder how dense the one who stated the following about Fetterman

When he said he was 100% for Israel and I saw he took AIPAC and other money from Israeli lobbies and said he was not a progressive my support ended. He lied to us. I hope to vote for a progressive opponent in his next primary.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, even the blue states are feeling the resource and budget pinch with immigration and are aggressively calling for federal assistance. His views aren’t exactly out of line with his constituents on that issue.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Who are you referencing here? Illinois is the only one I remember, and their solution isn't to close the border, it's to speed up processing and stop a giant state from intentionally overstressing a smaller state. California is on the border and handling things just fine, but when suddenly all of Texas's immigrants get redirected to a state that doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle them, it's a problem.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago

Whoops! No re-election for you!

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON — Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is breaking with progressives on hot-button issues with his fiery support for Israel and calls for Democrats to engage on tougher immigration laws, disappointing some on the left as he shows an independent streak.

Fetterman insisted he can be pro-immigration while also favoring policies to restrict the flow of migration to manageable levels, disagreeing with progressives who oppose new limits on asylum and bash some of the ideas in the negotiations as cruel.

The senator added that while it’s “not ideal to have this conversation” about asylum and parole policy in connection with an aid package for Israel and Ukraine, “it’s still one that we should have,” given that Republicans have made it an essential condition to advance the supplemental bill.

Fetterman’s fierce and unwavering support for Israel breaks sharply with demands by Sanders to withdraw U.S. military aid and has drawn searing criticism from the left as the Palestinian death toll soars amid the Israeli government’s bombing campaign in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

“For a lot of Republicans, it’s been a pleasant surprise,” said Christopher Nicholas, a longtime GOP strategist based in Pennsylvania, referring to Fetterman’s stances on Israel, border policy and Menendez.

Fetterman chief of staff Adam Jentleson said the senator has “always had” the policy positions he’s espousing today, even though Republicans wanted to paint him as a socialist in 2022 and “some folks on the left are pretending” he has since changed his beliefs.


The original article contains 1,044 words, the summary contains 247 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›