• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, sorry, four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same, even if they sometimes support the same bad policies.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I mean to be fair the Democrats trotted out an obscenely draconian immigration bill that was basically every Republicans wet dream about the border and the only reason it didn’t pass was because it included Ukraine funding and the Republicans didn’t want to give Biden a win.

        Call me crazy, but giving the Republicans everything they want just to gain small concessions is bonkers and makes it seem like Democrats really don’t have that much of a problem with horrific policies that Republicans want.

        The Democrats leaned on DREAMers for like a decade and were going to fucking throw them under the bus with that border bill in a way that screamed “Political capital is used up, fuck them DREAMers!”

        They are not the same but Democrats spend way too much time trying to make deals with people who only want to hurt them and others so they can be seen “reaching across the aisle.”

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            and brinskmanship is a good thing? That’s how you catch the car and end up the villain. It’s the brinksmanship that Republicans played for a decade that led to Donald Trump getting elected. Do not make the mistake of thinking the Democrats are somehow immune to that effect.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The best way party officials are spinning this is that he is expecting the courts to issue a stay right away and this run up is to give the ACLU enough warning to have the case ready to go.

                    This is just more brinksmanship.

                    And if they call his bluff, which leaning Conservative the courts just might, he’s now got to either rescind the order in shame or deal with a Republican PR wet dream for the rest of the campaign season.

                    When you shut down the border based on numbers and automatically deny asylum to anyone who was too late it turns into a physical game at the border. The 2nd or 3rd time someone announces the border is back open everyone who wants asylum is going to run for it, creating huge crowds. The RNC is going to have cameras there and what do you think the headline is going to be? It’s not going to be, “Biden Tough on Border”. It’s going to be stuff like, “Chaos at Border!”, “Biden Loses Control”, “Border States Deploy Armed National Guard”

                    Doubling down on the tactic doesn’t make it not brinksmanship. And it does signal he has no problem abandoning his base.

          • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1

            Is this political brinksmanship?


            Fuck me, it’s just like how Trump said “we need to stop testing for COVID” and then Biden never said it out loud, but he just stopped funding testing for COVID but didn’t say the words “we need to stop testing for COVID.” He just did it instead of saying it and somehow everyone was fine with it.

          • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The Senate Democrats also reintroduced the bill on its own, and let the Republicans vote against it. This was absolutely a political move on their part, letting the GOP tear itself apart arguing about whether they should’ve voted for or against it. They’re taking advantage of the existing tensions and divisions within the party to weaken them.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same

        Biden isn’t on Twitter, so we can ignore the wars and the concentration camps and the Cop Cities and the deteriorating climate.

        • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          He picks different supreme court justices though and has some different head of agencies, though. That alone makes a big difference.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Dems had the opportunity to stop up the ACB nomination in 2020 the same way Repubs blocked Garland in 2016. In fact, it would have been easier. Feinstein only had to hold up the vote for three months compared to McConnell’s twelve. Dems waved her through, the same way Joe Biden’s Judiciary Committee waved through Clarence Thomas back in 1991, months before Bill Clinton took office.

            Its not enough to say which Presidents are picking the nominees. The senatorial strategies are totally different. Republicans hold Dem nominees hostage while Dems rubber stamp whatever assholes the GOP cough up.

            Had Dem Senators punted on Thomas and ACB when they had the opportunity, the SCOTUS of today would look totally different.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Since I didn’t get a response from the other person, perhaps you could explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That’s pretty strawman of you. Assuming he’s operating in bad faith; how does appointing Judge Jackson stop the ratchet effect? That’s what we’re talking about here. I happen to think he’s operating in good faith, just to his donors instead of his constituency. But the effect is the same, holding the status quo that the GOP sets. Why hasn’t Mayorkas purged ICE in an attempt to reform it? Where are the wide ranging investigations of the human rights abuses that were so well reported during the Trump administration? Biden’s goal was never to bring things back in line, it was to keep the lights on and keep the money flowing to the donors. Some of whom run private detention centers.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              No, we were talking about how the two parties are exactly the same. If they are exactly the same, Trump would have the same reason for picking justice Jackson as Biden. So what is that reason?

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I understand that’s your straw man. But that’s not what the other people in this thread are saying.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That is not my straw man, that is exactly the order of the conversation. I was told both parties are the same, I asked if that was true, what Trump’s reason for picking Jackson would be.

                  No one has come up with an answer.

                  But one person has tried to argue with me in this thread that Harriet Miers was a feminist and sent me to some Christian website to prove it, so that was amusing.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson? Just explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked since both parties are the same.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson?

                We would have more Judge Jacksons on the court if the Dem Senate had played hardball with Republican Presidents. And taking Thomas out of circulation in 1991 would have changed the Bush v Gore decision in 2000, which would have meant President Al Gore seating even more Judge Jacksons in his subsequent terms.

                No Thomas means no Bush Jr. No Bush Jr means no gerrymandering greenlit by Ashcroft’s DOJ. Which would have promised more state level liberal courts in places like Texas and Wisconsin (ie, more state court Judge Jacksons). Which would have curbed the rise of white nationalism following Obama’s election in 2008. No GOP capture of Florida through mass disenfranchisement of black voters. No extended legacy of GOP rule in Georgia, for the same reasons. No War on Immigration in Arizona and Colorado and Texas, forcing those states farther and farther to the right. All of which would have precluded a Trump presidency in 2016.

                No Trump means we don’t have to worry about who he’d pick for SCOTUS.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  That is still not an explanation for why judge Jackson would be the sort of SCOTUS judge Trump would pick if both parties are the same.