this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
279 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3264 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
 

Their idea was to tie approval of military assistance to Ukraine to tough border security demands that Democrats would never accept, allowing Republicans to block the money for Kyiv that many of them oppose while simultaneously enabling them to pound Democrats for refusing to halt a surge of migrants at the border. It was to be a win-win headed into November’s elections.

But Democrats tripped them up by offering substantial — almost unheard-of — concessions on immigration policy without insisting on much in return. Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

(page 2) 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Oh look, another article from the NY times accepting the lie that manageable and needed immigration is somehow a crisis surge. I really wish democrats hadn't decided that xenophobia is bipartisan now.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Biden could have unilaterally ended this entire charade by activating the national guard, but he's a fucking coward so we get this "fascist-lite" bill that will never pass instead. It's disgusting political theater, playing with the lives of migrant children. I fucking hate this country. This isn't some master Liberal political play, it's pathetic. I can't believe I'm going to vote for this rotting sack of genocidal flesh again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

so we get this "fascist-lite" bill that will never pass

We hope

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 78 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They didn't, though. They're doing their paymaster's bidding just fine, stalling Ukraine aid.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 9 months ago (3 children)

It kind of makes the point that this is what they're doing even more explicit. The stuff they claim to care about? Not so much. Helping Putin? Definitely.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (21 children)

From a Euro-Nato layman's point of view, our alliance with the US has become more a liability than anything else. Believing that we can rely on you (like you did on us after 9/11) looks more and more like a trap which diverts our energy and attention away from our own interests.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

We need single issue bills. It should be illegal to pack your legislature fatter than Augustus Gloop.

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

I have never understood how the fuck this has ever been a thing at all.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Also, fuck these assholes. Its painfully obvious they just want to fuck over Democrats AT OUR EXPENSE. WE PAY THEIR SALARIES THROUGH TAXES NOW FUCKEN WORK.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

That's how things get done in Congress honestly. If Republicans say, "we promise if you provide border funding, we'll support legislation to provide Israel and Ukraine funding" you have to trust that after you pass the law, they won't back off of their deal.

I'd be curious how other countries handle this situation

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except that this stuff was packaged together, so they couldn't pick one and refuse the other. So they refused the whole package.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

In non-first past the post systems you often end up with coalition governments.

The result is that you can screw the other guy over, but you're likely to be in government with them sooner rather than later, at which point they'll screw you right back.

It breeds compromise, even if it happens after spending a full year negotiating before agreeing to enter a coalition government and exactly and to ten decimal places which laws you that government will be enacting during the coming parliament.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Now it is Republicans who are rapidly abandoning a compromise that gave them much of what they wanted, leaving aid to Ukraine in deep jeopardy, border policy in turmoil and Congress again flailing as multiple crises at home and abroad go without attention because of a legislative stalemate.

The turn of events led to a remarkable Capitol Hill spectacle this week as a parade of Senate Republicans almost instantly repudiated a major piece of legislation they had spent months demanding as part of any agreement to provide more help to a beleaguered Ukraine.

“A year ago they said, ‘We need a change in the law,’” said Mr. Lankford, frustrated by his Republican colleagues who had been up in arms about the border situation only to suddenly reject the new legislation.

As they sought to rationalize their anticipated decision to mount a filibuster against legislation they had called for, Republicans said they needed more time to digest the bill and perhaps be allowed to propose some changes.

Mr. Barrasso’s statement was just the latest indication that the looming election — and Donald J. Trump’s tightening grip on the party as the expected nominee — had made Republican approval of the border deal all but impossible.

Plus, House Republicans are going to be in a pitched battle to hold on to their majority after two years in charge with minimal accomplishment, and many of them view immigration as a winning wedge issue.


The original article contains 1,033 words, the summary contains 240 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›