Talisker

Oh I get it. You literally can't read anything longer than a tweet. You should have said that before hand. Again, the bill was a clone of a far right Republican bill from a year before that had even more items that Republicans wanted.

The border security bill – nearly identical to legislation House Republicans passed last year – was an attempt by House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana to quell growing hard-right dissatisfaction

Jerry Nadler of New York, said the bill was a “foolhardy attempt to pass for a second time one of the most draconian immigration bills this Congress has ever seen. This rehashing of H.R. 2 is a joke.”

https://dondavis.house.gov/media/in-the-news/us-house-votes-down-border-bill-favored-conservatives

The 370-page border bill that Democrats signed off on reads like a GOP wish list. Perhaps that’s because Republicans helped write the bill (though many of them promptly turned around and helped tank it after Donald Trump announced his opposition) ... the legislation is a complete concession to the worst aspects of Trumpism that Biden and Democrats purportedly ran against in 2020

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/harris-trump-election-border

While policies narrowing access to asylum and expanding the border wall were once demonized by Democratic Party leaders, they are now a core element of party orthodoxy,

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/

If passed in its current form, the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act would be the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century. It would overhaul the process for seeking asylum in the United States—and impose an “emergency authority” that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years. It would attempt to address issues like work permits and years-long waits for asylum seekers, and also raise the initial standard a person must pass in order to access our asylum system.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/analysis-senate-border-bill

Literally can do this all day. You want me to go on? Probably no since you're not gonna read any of that anyways or pretend those things don't actually say what they say. You argue like Ben Shapiro (pejorative).

republicans killed the bill ‘because it goes too far to crack down on the border’, then that’d be democrats moving to the right of Republicans

Lol, desperate, desperate, desperate. That's not that I said and that's not why they killed it. The bill IS farther right than anything that Republicans passed through the house. As you even admit, they only killed it because Trump didn't want to give Democrats a "win". Then every Republican internally admitted that the border bill was the "best one" they would have ever gotten and gave them everything they wanted and more. Like it or not, that IS running to the right of Republicans. Can the Republicans change their stance and go farther right? Yeah of course, they're fascists. But it doesn't change the fact that Democrats were willing to go farther right than even fascists were proposing.

First off…technically,

So she didn't substantively say what you're straight up lying about her saying? Apology accepted.

She gave an open-ended answer about gender affirming care

So "open ended" that she actually said nothing of substance. I've been arguing with people on the internet for decades and this is probably the most pathetic attempt to weasel away from a politicians words I've EVER seen. It's a yes or no question and she refused to answer.

Timestamp me the part where she says “no”.

She didn't say no. But that's not how political support works. When you support something you say it loudly and clearly (e.g. "I support M4A") When you don't support something you weasel out of it. ("Do you support M4A? - Well I support Americans getting access to the coverage they need as part of an important conversation between themselves and their doctors"). That's how politics works and only a literal child doesn't understand that.

to because it was too hard

Because it was irrelevant and you were rambling. I never said shut off all fossil fuel tomorrow and you are once again just making up stuff to respond to and get big mad about. Why would I respond to you just making new stuff up when there's so many other places in this conversation that you're also making stuff up that need to be addressed.

Those voters don’t want Kamala to end the filibuster or to reign in the SCOTUS because that’s bad for moderate and conservative politics, the politics those people believe in.

Bro they don't want any of Kamalas policies either! That's the point. If you want ANY chance of getting these people out of the grasp of fascist Trumpian progapanda you need to.... articulate. a. clear. alternate. vision. to. fascism. You are NEVER going to win them over by doing fascism lite. You are never going to win them over by running to the right - because the fascists can always just move more right. You will never win them over with feckless centrism. You MIGHT win them over by confronting their world view over a long period of time and making a MORAL case for why fascism is wrong. If you are not confronting the MORAL implications of fascism because you are agreeing with the base premises you are going to lose.

Are you saying I’m wrong to assume YOU aren’t voting for Kamala, or to assume you’re talking about not voting for Kamala in general? I’ll hold onto both those assumptions for a bit longer…

Again, I personally am not voting for Kamala because our election system is a joke and I live in a safe blue state and do not have to vote for her. I have not said anything about telling anyone else how to vote - I can't speak to anyone else's personal situation.

Again, it doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what targets of Trump’s appeal think.

Do you not know how arguments work? Do you know where you are right now? What Trump supporters are part of this conversation? This is an online argument between you and me. I am arguing the things to you that I believe are correct. Because that's how arguments work. Did you expect me to come out here and argue for the opposite of what I believe?

Even though that’s just what YOU want, hence my accusation of projection that you’ve so far not addressed.

Yes, it's the strategy that I PERSONALLY BELIEVE is the best. That is why I am arguing for it, here on the internet. Presumably you don't believe the same which is why you're arguing something different. That's how conversations work. Jesus Christ, can you even pass the Turing test? You see a turtle in a desert lying on it's back....

no actually wait here are more links for what I was actually trying to say”

Bro how desperate are you? The links all say the **same **thing. I could find you hundreds more that ALSO say the same thing. This was a HUGE news story a while back, this isn't even controversial. Republicans openly admitted that the bill went farther than the one they previously wrote and only killed it because Trump told them to. Are you gonna keep whining the more links I show you that prove me right?

https://newrepublic.com/article/178860/republicans-border-deal-michael-bennet

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/31/biden-border-deal-progressives-00138687

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/5/24062710/senate-immigration-bill-border-security-ukraine-2024?utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=vox.social

Biden came into office promising to undo the cruelties of his predecessor. His party’s 2020 platform didn’t even mention border security and instead focused on expanding legal immigration pathways, rolling back the US’s immigration detention regime, ending the root causes of migration, and other immigrant-friendly provisions. After former President Barack Obama was dubbed the “deporter in chief,” it seemed as though Trump had pushed Democrats to embrace a newfound moral case for increasing immigration.

But now Biden is staring down what is all but assured to be a rematch with Trump, whose ultra-right immigration platform was arguably what catapulted him to office in 2016 and who has promised to pursue even more extreme policies should he win a second term. The former president is reportedly considering expanding his travel bans on immigrants from certain countries, conducting wide-scale deportations of undocumented immigrants living in the US, ending birthright citizenship, resuming family separations in immigration detention, and more.

Democrats might still ridicule Trump’s call to build a wall on the southern border. But they’re now favoring an agenda that focuses more on constructing a figurative wall, grounded in legal hurdles and new enforcement measures designed to keep migrants out, than on meaningfully reforming the immigration system.

You're not arguing in good faith at this point.

(yes, it’s a matter between doctors and patients)

Timestamp me the part where she says "yes". That's not what she said and you know it. You're just lying now.

Biden doesn’t care about climate change - no wait, that maybe he does, but not “in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is

That's the ONLY WAY TO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. If you just pay it lipservice and then do all the bad things that are making the world boil, guess what! You don't actually care about climate change.

Not after acknowledging yourself that “you’re not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster” but playing that off like it’s just a random “given single policy issue”.

Yeah buddy the problem is structural. Selling out your values to chase after the mystical 'undecided middle' doesn't work. Democrats need to be a party of values that they live up to. If you don't see the difference between those things then I can't help you.

And certainly not after evoking Bernie Sanders as a positive figure, who is himself urging people to vote for Kamala.

Where did I ever say anything about not voting for Kamala? You just don't have a leg to stand on.

The rest of your comment makes it very clear that you’re dug in, that you earnestly believe your projection onto all 70+ million people who are gonna vote for Trump, and that if Kamala was exactly the candidate you wish she was, that she’d magically sway people inundated with Fox News 24/7 because you have it all figured out.

Yes, I do as a matter of fact tend to argue for the things that I think are right and correct. Is this supposed to be some own? Since you're so right and smart why can't you even form a coherent response that doesn't involve straight up lying about the democrats own words.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you either intend to vote for Stein or De La Cruz, or just want to push other people to do that.

I don't live in a swing state so yeah I'm gonna vote for PSL and talk about why I think that is good. Again, is that supposed to be some damning argument? Lol you're so out of steam.

I can’t take you seriously.

Crying and shaking RN.

Same as it ever was.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jul/11/barackobama.uselections2008

That’s a BS exaggeration.

It's literally not. They ran to the right of what Republicans wanted. There are countless articles talking about how it was everything and more than Republicans wanted and they only turned it down over politics. I can find literally dozens of these articles:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-border-bill-wrong/

https://www.vox.com/politics/2024/2/5/24062710/senate-immigration-bill-border-security-ukraine-2024

Saying “She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights” is completely inaccurate.

She literally got up on national TV and when was asked a direct, completely basic question about whether or not she supported trans peoples most fundamental issues, deflected, dodged and refused to give a vocal endorsement of their rights. You can not be serious with this answer, you know how bad this looks. Literally all she had to do was say "I support trans rights" or any other generic statement but she didn't because she thinks trans people are a liability to her campaign and she's hard pivoting to the right.

I bet you’d say Biden ”isn’t committed to climate change” either, since oil went up under him too.

Haha, incredible. Do you think that Biden IS committed to climate change? Like in a meaningful, taking it as seriously as the end of the world doomsday scenario it is? His administration straight up lied about 'no new drilling'. They laughed at the Green New Deal. Democrats are all talk on the environment.

like she’ll choose not to sign roe codification into law if given the chance.

Will she prioritize it? Or will she pull an Obama who had the chance to do it but said "It wasnt the highest priority"? You think it's just gonna land on her desk with a wave of a magic wand? Will she FIGHT for it? Or are we getting another "I think we should obey the law" in a couple years.

ou can’t seriously think Harris could sway those people by talking about ending the filibuster, or reigning in the SCOTUS.

It's about more than one single issue. Its about having a defined set of values that you care about and can be held accountable to. Being "Not Donald Trump" isn't that. You know why most Americans like Bernie Sanders? (Yes even the conservatives who scream about socialism) Because he's been saying the same shit for 30 years. You don't have to worry about him going up on a stage and wonder if he's going to suddenly backtrack on Medicare for All with some "I think we should follow the law" non-answer. He has values that he expresses, even when they're unpopular. Do you even really know what Kamala believes in? Or is she campaigning on whatever happens to be polling at 51% or better? For better or worse we all know what Trump believes in.

No you're not going to flip any single voter by saying you want to end the fillibuster or any given single policy issue. You get them to flip by demonstrating a clear set of values and sticking to them, so that when they have doubts about fascism they can look at the other side and know what it stands for. They know that there's a moral argument to be made for any of these policy decisions because the democratic leadership has spent every opportunity to educate about them.

These people are inundated with propaganda 24/7. If all they hear from the right is about how immigrants are rapists who steal our jobs and are flooding the border like a zombie apocalypse movie, and then they go to the left to see that the Democrats kind of agree but think we should only deport 50% of the immigrants instead of 100% of them and want the border to be only slightly more lethal, what conclusion do you think they're going to draw? Imagine for a second we had democratic leadership that weren't straight up cowards and NOW when undecideds look to the left they hear about how the vast majority of illegal immigration is due to overstayed visas and the border is kind of a sham topic. Now they hear that the border is already the deadliest border crossing in the world by a large margin and making it 5% deadlier isn't going to fix the issue. Now they hear that immigrants pay taxes into the system and don't get them back out, and are the foundation of many of our industries that would collapse without them (there's other issues here obviously). Now they hear about the cost of detaining and deporting people and they hear about what asylum means.

THAT's what it means to present an alternate world view. If you're offering people a choice between a Republican who is going to 100% deliver on fascism or a Democrat who barely knows what they stand for and is going to diddle around for 4 years and never make a coherent case for anything, or at best offers some Diet Republican policy, people are gonna just pick the fascist.

"Better than Trump" is not an alternate worldview. This is why she's in danger of losing.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbVPee2UdJk

• https://therealnews.com/as-democrats-fold-to-the-gop-immigrants-pay-the-price

• https://www.newsweek.com/dnc-2024-immigration-border-daca-kamala-harris-1942685

• https://whyy.org/articles/harris-climate-energy-policy-domestic-oil-drilling/

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/11/kamala-harris-fracking-gas-climate-change/

• https://jacobin.com/2024/08/kamala-harris-economic-plans-verdict

• https://fortune.com/2024/10/01/harris-economic-plan-middle-class-discontent-politics/

she is clearly far more outwardly pro-choice than Trump.

You're missing the point. Its NOT ENOUGH to be marginally better than Trump. You need to present a coherent alternative worldview, which she is failing to do by running to the center and saying as little as possible. What has she offered besides vague rhetoric on this? Is she going to end the fillibuster to restore abortion access? Is she going to reign in the extremest Supreme Court? Are they finding creative solutions with the FDA to regulate mifepristone? Will she proactively use the powers of the presidency to save lifes or is she going to talk about how important it is to codify Roe and then never do it?--

Because fascists can always move father right. You can’t out Republican the Republicans.

Is she?

She just got on national TV and refused to support trans rights. Democrats ran to the right of fascists on militarizing the border. She is pro imperialism. She isn’t committed to climate change. She’s not going to meaningfully redistribute wealth. Looking at how desperate Americans are right now do you really think that coming out with a plan to raise the top marginal tax rate from 30 to 35 percent or whatever is some massive rallying cry that’s going to make people re-evaluate their worldviews? She’s not even that strong on abortion rights.

Weird that this has to be explained this late into the game but…

Trump is running on the promise of enacting fascism and using state power to mete out retribution to the ‘undesirables’ that his voters blame for their lack of power. To this end there is nothing he can say or do that will make them not vote for him. He is promising power and as long as he wins his promise is kept.

Kamala is running on a platform of ‘not fascism’ and to that end she does need to provide a coherent alternate worldview to mindless retribution. It’s not enough for her to walk the middle of the road and say as little as possible. She needs to give people a diametrically opposed worldview. She needs to be capable of explaining why fascist retribution isn’t good or helpful. She can not just be a diet Republican. She needs to have coherent answers to their obvious bullshit.

Hope this helps. Horrifying that the people who are a decade into Trumpism and ostensibly responsible for stopping it don’t seem to have the slightest clue what motivates it or how to counter it.

Peak liberalism.

Imagine thinking that once the loudest symptom of fascism is no longer visible, the decades long multibillion dollar Republican project to undemocratically seize power just goes away. That all the structural issues with America go away.

Big “We want to go back to brunch” energy.

Does it? Or does it boil down to whether or not you are willing to rubber stamp the death of your loved ones.

When it’s theoretical gamesmanship people like you are more than willing to act like dispassionate chess masters but I have a hard time believing that if it was your family getting killed you would be so cavalier.

Easy to say when it’s not your family getting slaughtered.

But we all know you’re a paragon of rationality who would enthusiastically vote for an administration who has promised to kill your family because your love of lesser evilism outweighs anything else.