Just a moment...
www.axios.com
  • Corigan@lemm.ee
    18·
    3 months ago

    Ffs can we stop with the middle ground centrist bullshit and actually do some good with some “progressive” policies… You know the “progressive” that is barely left of center anywhere else in the world.

    • Amerikan Pharaoh@lemmygrad.ml
      14·
      3 months ago

      They never will. What they call ‘progressive’ policies don’t make anyone any money; and don’t advance anyone’s hegemony. And with these crackers, that bar is in Hell.

      • NPa [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        The worst part is that adopting a tiny modicum of “progressive” politics would actually make them (the country as a whole, but also the bourgeoisie) more money in the end, just based on the fact that you can’t run a capitalist society in any meaningful sense if your working class can’t afford to live (and thus make surplus value available to the owner-class). More public transport would make it hella easier for a business to recruit a workforce from places with lower rents and further commutes, more money in the pocket for consumers means more consumption, etc. etc. There was that survey a few years back that showed that if wealth were to be redistributed fairly, the average American would be almost twice as rich.

        The problem is really that certain segments of capitalist society would not be so overwhelmingly powerful, and easing up on military adventures would mean a resurgence of workers rights in many parts of the world… It’s not enough to be the richest country if you can’t also make the rest of the world poor.

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    204·
    3 months ago

    So this is the internal politics dems are supposedly better than reps? Lol it’s just as usual. Also what is the woman equivalent of Uncle Tom?

    • Drusas@fedia.io
      88·
      3 months ago

      Read the fucking article. There’s at least some harm reduction compared to what the Republicans want and the status quo.

      The bill, which Murphy described as a “compromise” also included provisions with more money for asylum lawyers and judges for the overloaded immigration system.

      This is what we actually need. More money for judges and attorneys and whoever else is involved in the asylum process in order to more expeditiously get through the massive numbers of migrants. And people need to remember that a lot of these people are refugees. Fleeing for their own lives and those of their children. A lot of Americans need to remember that these are people.

      They’re no different than you or I. We benefited from our ancestors mostly being able to come willy-nilly into the US and now we want to close the door? It’s frankly anti-American.

      Give us your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

      Aside from the Native Americans, that is all of us. Every single one of us. It’s like boomers who ruined the housing market and the economy pulling the ladder up behind them, but worse.

      We need more resources put into this so we can better determine who to let in and who to send back and to do so within a reasonable timeline. We have the money for that. The US is not hemorrhaging cash. But it sure is hemorrhaging humanity when it comes to refugees.

        • Bad_Engineering@fedia.io
          24·
          3 months ago

          No we don’t, the wall does pretty much fuck all to stop illegal immigration. However, aside fom the fact its just her signing a bipartisan bill and not her own policy, there’s an election going on and VP Harris needs all the votes she can get.The wall is just a shiney thing to distract some idiots into voting for her. When the alternative is a party that wants to “deport millions” I’ll take throwing some money at a big stupid wall over the alternative.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            6·
            3 months ago

            She is not going to gain any votes from building a wall, literally anyone who wants a wall is going to vote for Trump.

            Tailism is bad, mkay?

            • Bad_Engineering@fedia.io
              13·
              3 months ago

              Its not only trump sycophants that think a wall will stop immigration. There are plenty of undecided voters with little to no understanding of immigration and the policy associated with it. Granted, a wall is a simple minded/uninformed persons idea of a solution to illegal immigration, but that’s kinda the core populous of undecided voters isn’t it. If you want the perfect socialist candidate to reform US politics I’m afraid you’re gonna be waiting a long time, dont let perfect be the enemy of good. We have yo start somewhere and the immigration bill has a fair amount of real and effective reforms in it.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                3·
                3 months ago

                It’s a fascist bill for a shit hole country.

                This. Is. Tailism.

                The goal isn’t merely to win. The goal is to lead, and it is impossible to lead by chasing the electorate’s tail via woefully inaccurate public opinion polling. We need a Party that is willing to envision something, rather than narrowly tailor its policies to some imaginary middle.

                • Bad_Engineering@fedia.io
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  Whenever a party like that forms and has even the slightest chance of winning elections I will vote my ass off for them. In the mean time I’m gonna vote for the assholes that maintain the status quo rather than the fascist assholes that want to put people like you and me in gas chambers. I’m not happy about voting dem but I am happy to vote against the GOP any chance I get. I do always vote for the left most candidate I can in state and local races but on the national stage we unfortunately have only two shit choices, and one of them is far worse than the other.

              • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                We have yo start somewhere

                And that somewhere is state level electoral reform, replacing First Past The Post voting with a more representative electoral system.

                One that gives voters the freedom to vote for who best represents them, secure in the knowledge their vote will still be counted if their preference didn’t win.

                Democrats say they support democracy, yet the vast majority of blue states still uses FPTP voting. Curious…

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    179·
    3 months ago

    She said she would sign the bipartisan immigration bill, even though larded with a ton of bullshit, including ‘the wall’ as a portion. And the headline is “She flip-flopped and wants to build Trump’s wall?”

    Hack journalism at its best.

  • HowMany@lemmy.ml
    22·
    3 months ago

    This, then, is a lie. She supports the bipartisan border package that trump killed.

          • HowMany@lemmy.ml
            22·
            3 months ago

            Tell me what it says that’s so horrible. If you would, please enlighten me to what specific clauses are horrifying. Appreciate it!

            • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              32·
              3 months ago

              Well first of all it gives the president the abilty to shut the border down until they figure out what the hell is going on - which is disgusting increase in executive power. It increases the amount of detention beds and detention officers - so increased concentration camp capacity and guards.

              The whole thing seeks to solve the alleged border crisis - a right wing myth that the US’s second right wing party has finally decided to vocally adopt. All that solving the border crisis means is more inhumanity toward people trying to cross the southern border due to the effects of climate change, US imperialism and neocolonism.

              I hope you appreciate it smuglord border nazi

              • HowMany@lemmy.ml
                12·
                3 months ago

                Well first of all it gives the president the abilty to shut the border down until they figure out what the hell is going on

                Where in the bill is this stated?

                The whole thing seeks to solve the alleged border crisis - a right wing myth…

                I asked for specific wording clarification. While I appreciate the editorial, the source (you) is questionable.

                It sounds as if you don’t really know what you’re talking about even though you’re making this super emotional appeal but it’s not backed up by fact one. And that’s even after I asked for facts.

                Your stance in no way influenced my thinking. What’s more it makes me suspicious of you.

                • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  27·
                  3 months ago

                  M’Liege, I have retrieved yon bill for ye.

                  improve-society

                  “(3) ACTIVATIONS OF AUTHORITY.—

                  “(A) DISCRETIONARY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.

                  “(B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if—

                  “(i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or

                  “(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.

                  Now you may say, “Aha, we have you hyperbolic hexbears now, it clearly says that the president doesn’t just get to shut it down until they figure out ‘what the hell is going on’!”

                  smuglord

                  Which is correct. What it does is tie their hands such that they must shut the border down when an arbitrary number is reached, so they don’t have to actually do anything and can plead their powerlessness when it happens. After all it’s not up to them, it’s just a mandate of a conservative law… that they want to pass.

                • HelluvaBottomCarter [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  25·
                  3 months ago

                  Your stance in no way influenced my thinking

                  “It’s everyone’s responsibility to talk me out of being a dipshit and if they refuse to waste time, that just proves me right. Oh and I want a detailed report on the bi-partisan border bill on my desk before my bed time or you’re extra wrong.”

                • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  23·
                  3 months ago

                  What’s more it makes me suspicious of you.

                  Genuinely curious, do you think it matters to anyone in an online forum if you are vaguely suspicious of them? I’m not sure why you would even say that. What are you trying to accomplish?

                • TheDoctor [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  20·
                  3 months ago

                  Well first of all it gives the president the abilty to shut the border down until they figure out what the hell is going on

                  Where in the bill is this stated?

                  Biden said of the bill, “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.”

                  source

                  To anyone saying to just go read the bill, I’d love for you to point me to an article that even names the name of the bill in question, let alone links to the full text of the bill. I just spent 10 minutes searching for it and I’m giving up because I have better shit to do.

                • Kumikommunism [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  11·
                  3 months ago

                  Because you don’t want to look at the bill because you’re racist and hate immigrants, multiple people have responded with multiple sources including the bill itself.

                  Now it’s already very clear to everyone here that your “stance” wouldn’t be changed by anything and you’re simply masking your apathy and racism by feigning scepticism, but are you even going to try and come back here and pretend otherwise? I highly doubt it, but hopefully your brilliant truth-seeking mind will prove me wrong!

            • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
              31·
              3 months ago

              Narrator: A common tactic of engagement from the liberal is feigning interest in a topic, as observed here. They undulate and warble in a way that mimics genuine interest to lure their targets into conversation, their goal, unknown. Science has yet to discover why a liberal will engage in this performance. Their target tries to engage with this dance in good faith, over time, as the target finds themselves talking in circles, they realize the deception. Not a completely useless exchange, however, as it signals to the rest of the spectors withing the area not to waste their energy, reserving it for another day.

              • HowMany@lemmy.ml
                11·
                2 months ago

                Me: You’re a fucking removed. You’ve no comprehension skills and you can’t put forth the slightest logic. You do appeal to emotional nonsense well… republican much?