News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
What exactly are they risking? What do you object to about the concessions? Looking at what was proposed it seems to be a quota on illegal immigration that triggers an emergency if the number is exceeded, and minor procedural changes intended to make the process more efficient.
They've effectively ceded the entire narrative around the boarder to Trump and accepted that there is a 'crisis'.
The risk they took was that this would actually have gotten passed, which would be stupendously horrible and almost certainty would have cost them the election.
They got a shitty paper victory (which wont mean shit in 3 weeks), gave up any kind of distinction on the boarder, effectively accepting that Donald Trump is 'right' about border policy and they were 'wrong', risked the passage of an incredibly stupid and draconian border bill, and have generally shown that they are weaker than they were even considered to be.
This entire community seriously needs to stop cheer leading Democrats and develop some critical thinking skills. This a 'victory' like removing single payer was a 'victory' under the Obamacare negotiations. Supposedly, it was going to get them Republican votes (spoiler: it didn't).
This whole thing is actually a huge loss for the Democrats, because they've effectively given Trump a W in terms of the entire framing of the border issue. It will come back to bite them, book mark this comment, and we can come back to it when it does. Effectively, Democrats have handed leadership on border policy to the Republicans. Democrats need to do so much better than they have been and dumb ass shit like this is not how they need to be doing better.
Broadly, if the NY Times is calling something a victory, you should seriously consider it with greater scrutiny.
The problem is that right now the Democrats are all that the US has. These decisions need to be made right now and the Democrats are the only ones who physically have the ability to get them made in vaguely sane ways.
So maybe you don't like them, maybe you think they're crap, maybe you think they're doing a poor job. But that's still the best you're going to get right now, which is all that really matters for some very important things going on. And so we cheer them on.
It'd be great if next chance the Americans get they swap them out for people who are better, but that chance isn't coming along for a little while yet. And they're stuck with a pretty shitty electorate, too, so that needs to be taken into account.
Republicans want to unload a tanker truck of gasoline on the fire, while Democrats are negotiating to only pour a couple of gallons on the fire, as opposed to arguing in favor of water.
Democrats are not a part of the problem, the are the problem in the same way Republicans are.
Pretending this was some kind of Democratic victory is self-delusion at its finest and the Lemmy community needs to do better.
There are long term electoral and policy consequences for these kinds of faux victories. We just watched the ratchet effect happen in real time. Republican border policy is now Democrat border policy.
If the end result is stagnation there are less risky approaches. My biggest concern here is that Democrats will see this as a victory, and next time they are feeling their oats, they'll try it again and get their hand slammed in the rat trap, and some insane piece of legislation will be one step closer to becoming law.
It was a stupid fucking plan and they got lucky. To your point, the Dems are all we have. They shouldn't be taking these kinds of low reward, high risk plays.
And perhaps that's a sacrifice that's worth making to prevent Ukraine from being genocided by Russia. Your judgment of what is a "low reward" is not necessarily shared by everyone.
Your democracy isn't going to vanish because you've got some overly-strict border controls for a while.
Ukraine can vanish if Russia is able to conquer it. Millions of people can die in gulags, of starvation, or have their children taken away and "reedcuated." It's literally happened to Ukraine before. Russia is explicitly trying to do that to it again right now.
So excuse me for my priorities.
That's one way to look at it, I see the Democratic response to be more like, "I don't think there is a crisis but if stronger border security will shut you up and let us run the government like functional adults, I suppose that isn't so bad. We like security, too."
Republicans have been fear-mongering over the border every election cycle with moderate success, and this takes the wind out of their sails without much of a downside. I don't object to stronger borders/immigration reform even though I don't think it's as important an issue as the xenophobic right seems to.