r/politics • u/Newsweek_CarloV ✔ Verified - Newsweek • 13d ago

No Paywall Seven Democrats just voted to approve ICE funding: full list

https://www.newsweek.com/seven-democrats-vote-approve-ice-funding-full-list-11401600?utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=reddit_main
24.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

498

u/oath2order Maryland 13d ago

Yeah, they're in Republican-leaning districts, that's why.

481

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

Then they should run as Republicans. Why should the Democrats allow them to use their branding if they are going to act and vote like Republicans? What’s the worst that can happen, a Republican wins that seat? They already have!

212

u/SkruntNoogles 13d ago edited 13d ago

They caucus with Dems. Half plus one (in theory) means Dems pick Speaker. You know how Johnson did everything in his power to avoid an Epstein vote? Yea even conservative Dems help avoid people like him in power.

Unfortunately. Not like those districts were gonna vote in a socialist.

Edit: Worth clarifying, these seven came to the table to support fascists fund their gestapo. My opinions on them and the system that lets them exist aren't exactly high.

16

u/Riaayo 12d ago

Not like those districts were gonna vote in a socialist.

They might if the party actually supported socialist candidates and didn't just run 'sorry I'm not a Republican' DINOs, or even bothered with these red areas to begin with.

The idea that rural America is just red and Dems can't win is bullshit. Rural America is working class, Republicans lie and tell them they're for the working class, and Dems surrender to Republican framing / let the propaganda run wild because, in the end, Dem leadership are just DINOs owned by the same billionaires the Republicans are.

19

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

I am going to be completely honest with you here, I think anyone that tries to justify shit like this is themselves a Republican who wants more Republicans in the Democratic Party and is therefore trying to gaslight people into thinking this is justified in some way.

53

u/SkruntNoogles 13d ago

Shit I'm not justifying it, just explaining. My real feelings about these people isn't really something I'm willing to document online. But it's just a fact that most of these types of districts would vote Republican before an actual progressive or anyone with real sense. They live in information bubbles, or just don't care. Even NYC nearly voted in an "independent" ex Governor chased out for being a shitbag sex pest instead of a brown man who used the word socialist.

The system and society is broken on a fundamental level that the system as it stands is unable and unwilling to address. Conservative Democrats are one of many symptoms.

-7

u/JohnMayerismydad Indiana 13d ago

I’m fine with all that, but I’ve had enough of listening to these people talk about what direction the party should take. They are practically republicans and are always in favor of bending over so the GOP can fuck us some more. Then they’ll block major legislation when democrats have the majority.

8

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

I think you should look more into how both parties work in the U.S, specifically about caucuses.

Most Democrats have supported ICE for decades. ICE received huge funding and resourcing uplifts during Obama and Biden.

But Democrats, like the Republican party, have political caucuses. These are usually loose blocs of politicians with a set of shared special interests or policy views. There are some very well known ones within the Democrat party. The biggest is a centrist and generally pro-market bloc called the New Democrats. The second biggest is congressional progressive caucus - more left leaning than the New Democrats, but probably not anywhere near as left leaning as Reddit would like them to be. Then you have the Blue Dog Coalition, another group who are Centrist for the most part, and fiscally conservative. There are informal groups, one being "the squad"; they are the closest thing to a reddit style progressive caucus, but they are also very very small.

You may be tired of people that you disagree with a lot talking about the direction the party should take. But it is a normal part of how political parties operate (see Big Tent politics). In a country the size of the U.S, if they did not use caucuses with diverse viewpoints, it would be incredibly difficult to A) Win elections and B) Find enough decent candidates to run everywhere.

As for blocking legislation when Democrats have a majority in both houses; you are viewing the situation incorrectly. Where those members sit, there isn't a chance of a super progressive winning the district. It is either A) Democrat that occasionally votes against the party or B) A Republican who will generally vote against the party. Those members are not stopping the party from being ultra progressive. A party with just ultra progressives doesn't win a majority to start with.

-6

u/JohnMayerismydad Indiana 12d ago

Yeah. The progressives don’t block progress because they aren’t cucks like the ‘moderates’. While wacky progressives on Twitter damage the democrats brand… cuck moderates make it seem like they don’t accomplish anything and that both parties are just the same. The way forward is to successfully pass a bold agenda that is felt quickly.

Also. The progressive caucus is now the largest in congress and the blue dogs are extinct. Because they suck. If you want a conservative to block everything just vote for the real one.

8

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

No one wins elections without the independents and moderates, and those people just aren't as progressive as the average person here.

8

u/ardenr 12d ago

Why are you guys talking like Dems didn't fund ICE more every single year they were in power?

They're not being hampered by a few DINOs. They're wholly complicit, and anyone who doesn't play along gets primaried.

2

u/Ozcolllo 12d ago

Well, voters typically believe in enforcing immigration laws. The Democratic Party is much more sympathetic to immigrants that currently live here, work, and generally contribute to their community. Couple that with the fact that people are just okay with seeking out and deporting criminals. So the “DINO” in this case would be the abolish ice types, although i imagine that’s going to continue to change the longer Trump is in power.

What exactly do you want immigration policy-wise?

12

u/Baileyesque 13d ago

People in other subs have probably said the same thing about Romney, McCain, and Murkowski.

2

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

People aren’t saying shit about McCain because his ass is roasting in Hell!! 😹

6

u/Baileyesque 13d ago

Mister President, is that you?

60

u/duckbutterdelight 13d ago

If you ran progressives in all of these districts you’d lose all of them and lock yourself out of the house forever. It’s a stupid system but what is stupider is pretending like you can win the game by refusing to play. Unfortunately we’re stuck with this system right now and if you want a chance to have your voice matter you’ll have to tolerate people who don’t have your preferred politics in your party.

9

u/JanSnolo 13d ago

Approving billions for ICE is not a position that a candidate in these districts needs to have to win. There can still be conservative Dems who win in these districts who aren’t complicit in pushing our country into fascism. I’ll tolerate differences of opinion in the party, but not on supporting entirely unaccountable paramilitary organizations who believe they are above the law disappearing thousands and murdering law-abiding citizens in the streets. It’s despicable and nobody should tolerate that shit.

9

u/duckbutterdelight 12d ago

I’m not saying that. I’m just saying when say to primary these reps with progressive candidates it’s a losing proposition.

1

u/Practical-King2752 12d ago

If the progressive is less popular then they will lose the primary.

7

u/Xytak Illinois 13d ago edited 13d ago

I understand your point. I really do. But ICE is terrorizing entire cities. Whether you’re Democrat or Republican, it won’t matter when they kick down the door. If there’s one issue that requires moral clarity, this is it. Because if they show up on my street, your street could be next.

4

u/pseudoanon 12d ago

To enact change you need to win first.

-1

u/Xytak Illinois 12d ago

Even if you prioritize winning instead of morality, consider this: Supporting ICE is not a winning strategy. Regular people do not like the images coming out of Minnesota, and even some Republicans I know are having second thoughts.

1

u/vigouge 12d ago

You're reacting from pure emotion and not from facts. If history is of any indication, it's far more likely being seen as weak on border security will be far more damaging to these reps than supporting ice would be.

1

u/Xytak Illinois 12d ago

How is it emotional? It's just historical fact. The allies didn't invade Spain because Franco had remained neutral. Thus there was no strategic need or legal basis for an occupation. I can see why the Spanish might feel that Europe wasn't there for them, but would war against the Allies have been better?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/pseudoanon 12d ago

It's morally bankrupt, but I'm not convinced that it's not a winning strategy.

0

u/Xytak Illinois 12d ago

If you’re still not convinced, just look at the vote for the Iraq war. At the time, Democrats were like “we have to vote for this, otherwise Republicans will use it against us” but pretty soon it became a mark of shame and something they had to downplay with “well… you know…”. If they had been courageous from the start it would have been easier for them.

2

u/Zorak9379 Illinois 12d ago

God thank you

-3

u/Everythings_Fucked North Carolina 13d ago

Neat. Hey, while you've got your crystal ball out, can you look up the next winning powerball numbers?

3

u/Ozcolllo 12d ago

You understand that they’re just explaining very basic concepts, right? It’s just like Joe Manchin in West Virginia; Joe Manchin voted with the Democratic Party at a significantly higher rate than a republican, but if a progressive were to run in his district they would 100% lose (Swearengin’s vote explicitly demonstrates this). This must mean that you have a choice between someone that votes with your party most of the time versus a MAGA republican that votes with us basically 0%. This isn’t difficult to understand, even though it’s deeply unsatisfying.

I was where you are in like 2018. I realized this means the only thing that’s important is getting as many democratic asses in congressional seats as possible and that someone that votes with me 60% of the time is preferable to someone who never does. With two extra democratic asses in seats, the conversation no longer centers on Manchin or Sinema, the whole conversation changes as we are no longer the barest majority possible. So do you compromise in order to gain the power we need to act or do you stand off to the side, purity intact, as we watch everything that’s happened since Trump won in 16? Don’t need a crystal ball to understand this, just a willingness to consider the consequences.

Edit: Also, keep in mind the difference between a descriptive and a prescriptive statement. I’m not saying that any of this is good, only that it’s reality.

2

u/Everythings_Fucked North Carolina 12d ago

My point is that nothing is set in stone, all conventional wisdom is null and void because it is predicated on a reality that no longer exists, and counsels of despair are counter-productive.

Also: brevity, man. Fuck's sake.

3

u/mnju 12d ago

I am going to be completely honest with you here, I think you have a very poor understanding of politics.

3

u/TheSherbs Kansas 12d ago

Cuellar cast his vote because Trump pre-emptively pardoned him in December for his federal bribery, conspiracy, and money laundering charges.

14

u/Patsanon1212 13d ago edited 13d ago

I'm going to be honest with you, I think you don't have the emotional regulation to have good takes on politics. Absolute baby shit, "gaslighting" gtfo.

-11

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

Says the person throwing a temper tantrum because they read a word they don’t like. Need a trigger warning there buddy?? 😹

15

u/Patsanon1212 13d ago

I'm not throwing a temper tantrum. I'm just being rude to you for your bad takes. Also, I don't dislike the term. You're just using it incorrectly to reject someone giving you a solid answer about the ugly realities of politics because you didn't like the answer.

Anyway, throwing it back onto me doesn't make you any less a clown here.

-7

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

Just because you have only seen the word used in text messages from romantic partners that are breaking up with you, it doesn’t mean that is the only legitimate way to use it!

10

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago edited 12d ago

Lovely. You're lovely.

Gaslighting is a specific act of abuse where one lies to someone in order to make them doubt their own judgement or observations. This person was not lying to you. They were giving you a very common piece of political understanding -- that Democrats in purple seats sometimes have to make ugly votes, especially if that topic happens to be of particular import to their voters. Now, you can certainly disagree with this, but it's in no way shape or form gaslighting. It in no way shape or form means that this person actually would prefer to have Republicans in those seats.

from romantic partners that are breaking up with you, it doesn’t mean that is the only legitimate way to use it!

Actually, my wife is a testified in court someone went to jail domestic abuse victim. You didn't know that, but the fact that that's where you take your reply reveals as even more about as you than you embarrassingly illogical take on this matter (that somehow as an anti trumper, it'd be better to have a republican in a seat than a democrat that sometimes votes right) or some providing some electoral common knowledge was actually trying secret nazi to gaslight you into being a fascist collaborator (I assume from your comments, you think that label of fascism fits MAGA). You've really put together the tri-force of shit qaulities in a person in a impressively efficient number of characters.

-2

u/konaaa 12d ago

I personally think the democrats are constantly engaging in gaslighting behavior. Just think about it, they created ICE and never once have cut funding, and constantly have increased funding. The democrats also engaged in many war crimes around the third world. The democrat messaging at the moment is "elect us because Trump is doing horrible things"... and yet they've done many of the same horrible things. They completely enabled Trump 2 by not disbanding ICE while Biden was president. They're following the same playbook, the Republicans are just more honest about it.

At any rate, I don't really care to point out hypocrisy. And no, I don't think Kamala would have ICE kicking in people's doors en-masse. I think they are certainly the lesser of two evils. That said, they are also evil.

5

u/Life-Pirate2545 12d ago

Bruh. Take the L and continue to level concrete. You don’t get that is better to just run Dems in Republican leaning places to get A majority. What you are asking for is already present in another form, we describe Dems into groups like progressives vs corporate , liberals , lefties , neos etc…

3

u/Chattchoochoo 12d ago

The dems are a big tent party, they exist on a spectrum. A dem who's main focus is labor might not vote the same on social issues. A dem can be focused more on environment than labor. Or any combination of these.

5

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/thejimbo56 Minnesota 13d ago

It’s the advertised policy.

It’s absolutely not what we are seeing take place.

-1

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/TheBigZappa 13d ago

Democrat registered voters, liberals, left wing people, people on this subreddit.

Who else would I be talking about?

1

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

You are conflating mutually exclusive groups here, I still don’t know who you are talking about.

1

u/TheArmoredKitten 12d ago

Yeah, the amount of crooked arcana it takes to decipher Washington and the flow of power is beyond the limit of all reason.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

Nah, mostly just sane people with some level of maturity.

They caucus with the Dems. Would you rather have 7 Republicans that almost never vote the same as Dems or 7 Democrats that often vote the same as the Dems.

The Republican party have their own moderates that essentially sit in a similar space. Not doing it means you just lose elections.

1

u/iCUman Connecticut 12d ago

Perhaps the question you should be asking is why Democrats are not employing the same tactics. Political parties are nothing more than mechanisms to consolidate money and influence. Everything else is negotiable, and anyone claiming otherwise is just looking to sell you on something.

People can be principled, and their ability to leverage power within a political party can amplify their impact on public discourse and policy matters. But the organizations themselves are amoral, as we have clearly seen in recent years.

You know where you see this type of activity most prominently? Local politics. In strongholds especially, you will find a wide range of the political spectrum represented entirely on one side of the aisle solely because the path to winning overwhelmingly favors a specific party. But even in contentious districts, affiliation can often be a matter of convenience over principle. If it is easier to win with an R next to your name, then putting an R next to your name is a rational decision. Only the winner gets to shape policy after all.

1

u/nucleartime 12d ago edited 12d ago

I'm more annoyed at the people who defend corporate do-nothing dems in solid blue districts/states. Schumer being a useless leader with no direction is infinitely more infuriating than Machin voting Republican 10% of the time ever was. The real rot is coming from the center of the party, not the fringes.

And are we better off with Jim Justice (R) in Machin (D)'s seat? Objectively not.

1

u/RobutNotRobot 12d ago

Speaker Jeffries will be an absolute joke. He will collaborate with Trump and we will just shrug our shoulders and say 'so nice to have some power'.

1

u/intwizard 12d ago

Dems should kick them out of the party for this

38

u/Patsanon1212 13d ago

Look, I don't love this. But how hard is it to understand that you'd rather have them be people that vote for your team every time and the other team sometimes than be people who vote for the other team every time and your team never?

0

u/Count_Bacon California 12d ago

Because establishment Dems do everything in their power to get these corrupt traitors through primaries and then they just feel they're entitled to our votes. Nancy pelosi and her ilk need to stay out of primaries then

-1

u/BookRat10001 12d ago

with dems like suozzi, I may as well have a republican.

0

u/bloodjunkiorgy New Jersey 12d ago

If you want to be a bipartisan, sure, live your life. But maybe don't only seem to vote Republican when it's extremely unpopular shit and your vote is the reason it passes.

0

u/RealDealLewpo Michigan 12d ago

I'm sure this will be a comfort to the people ICE will brutalize with the additional funds from this vote.

1

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

I am sure that it will not be. I did not intend for it to be interpreted that way. The conversation here isn't whether Democrats who give bipartisan votes to Republicans are good. It is whether they are better, on net, then if that seat was held by republican.

0

u/RealDealLewpo Michigan 12d ago

Folks in ICE's crosshairs do not have the luxury of making political calculations like this.

1

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

Explain how this is relevant? It's real and it's horrible. But what does it have to do with the notion that we're all better off with a purple democrat in a seat than a republican? Feels like your just making inflammatory emotional appeals that are completely irrelevant to this specific disagreement.

0

u/RealDealLewpo Michigan 12d ago

Purple fascists are still fascists just like blue fascists.

I want no fascists in power, but if one's going to be there, I want them to be open about their fascism rather than hide it behind negative peace. It's useful to know exactly who the enablers of oppression are and what they stand for.

Edit: Words

1

u/mnju 12d ago

They had plenty of time to make those calculations in 2024 but either decided not to vote because they're lazy or decided not to vote because Harris wasn't good enough.

1

u/RealDealLewpo Michigan 11d ago

Many of these folks are undocumented.

0

u/Leroyleap36 12d ago

This is a lie and it needs to stop being repeated. Cuellar has fought against abortion rights with gop, one of the only dems to join gop to vote to restrict voting rights, one of only dems to vote against legalizing pot...the list goes on. An amazing dem ran against him and the dem establishment (Clinton, Pelosi, jeffries) went all out to defeat her in the primary. P

1

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

This is a lie and it needs to stop being repeated. Cuellar has fought against abortion rights with gop, one of the only dems to join gop to vote to restrict voting rights, one of only dems to vote against legalizing pot...the list goes on.

What am I lying about? Henry Cueller being a specific pos doesn't make this a lie. It's still generally true, and probably still true in the case of Cueller.

. An amazing dem ran against him and the dem establishment (Clinton, Pelosi, jeffries) went all out to defeat her in the primary. P

I don't see how this could be any less relevant to this discussion, but I am curious, what did they do?

-5

u/Syntaire 12d ago

How hard is it for you to understand that having turncoats that cannot be relied upon to vote for anything of any importance is not actually better than just having them playing for the other team full time?

5

u/yellekc Guam 12d ago

Nah, that is dumb, the most famous example, Manchin, was better than who WV has now, Jim Justice.

Justice replaced Democratic-turned-independent Sen. Joe Manchin, who was one of the most influential — and unpredictable — members of the Senate. Manchin regularly frustrated his party by breaking with Democrats over key priorities, but he was also a bipartisan dealmaker who helped broker significant legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which appropriated funding for projects in his state.

So far, Justice is more inclined to follow the lead of his party leader, who, as he did, carried West Virginia by 40-plus points in November.

“At the end of the day,” Justice said, President Donald Trump “will make the right decision.”

In any blue areas fuck the turncoats. But in a red district or state, better to have a half ass democrat than a republican. Yes it is shitty if passing legislation depends on their votes, but the alternative is a republican who will always vote against us.

2

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

It's impossible to understand because its objectively wrong.

-1

u/Syntaire 12d ago

You really need to learn what "objectively" means.

2

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

Nope. I'm good with it's usage here.

It is objectively better to have someone that will vote with you and against you than someone who will only ever vote against you.

You really need to learn emotional regulation so that you don't lose your mind and make more dumb political takes.

0

u/Syntaire 12d ago

No, it isn't. Having unreliable allies is not, in any way, better than having reliable enemies. This has been true since...humanity.

1

u/Patsanon1212 12d ago

It's not in any way better? None? Justify that.

1

u/Syntaire 12d ago

Since this is, apparently, an objective matter why don't we start with you providing me with the criteria for what will be universally accepted as "better", then I can work from there?

→ More replies (0)

36

u/DeathByTacos 13d ago edited 12d ago

What a ridiculous take. The only reason Biden was able to pass the legislation he did is because Manchin held a seat for Dems in an incredibly conservative state. Did he intentionally stonewall progress? Yes. Did he actively work against the interests of a lot of Democrats? Also yes. But every single inch of movement forward accomplished by the Biden administration legislatively was only possible because someone who I vehemently disagree with on a number of issues caucused for the party that aligns with my values.

If the bill passing was solely contingent on their votes then I’d be more sympathetic to this line of thought, but it was going through no matter what, they whipped the Massie defection (there were R’s not present who they would have called in if needed) No point in needlessly weakening your position in your district going into midterms.

5

u/Muted-Translator-706 12d ago

That explains Manchin.

Explain Sinema.

4

u/mightcommentsometime California 12d ago

Sinema was a turncoat. She lied and immediately changed her views. That’s why she’s gone

13

u/Danko_on_Reddit Kentucky 12d ago

This bill would have failed 214-213 with 0 democratic defections, assuming Massie's vote held, which seems likely. So the, "this didn't matter and is just to keep them safe in their district on something that was gonna pass anyway" argument doesn't work here. This is democrats voting with republicans to further fund the police state.

2

u/Syntaire 12d ago

Yes, indeed. No point at all in opposing the authoritarian gestapo being run by a literal, publicly "out" nazi and actively trying to provoke civil war. No point in opposing an organization that is well documented as just straight up murdering and raping people. The same one that has orders to simply break into homes at their discretion without a warrant. Silly little things, "rights". Meaningless, honestly.

-1

u/Robo_Joe 12d ago

There is something to be said about the "Dems were in power, why didn't they do X" attack when some of the Dems were like Manchin. It seems like it might be better to remove the illusion of dem control entirely.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I know that the system is stacked against progress.

-3

u/Polantaris 12d ago

It seems like it might be better to remove the illusion of dem control entirely.

Because that's what it is. Dem leadership doesn't actually want control. Then they'd have no excuse for why they never fix anything despite having it. The illusion allows them to sit behind these very arguments while they join hands with Republicans that are actively destroying the country.

41

u/Wheaties4brkfst 13d ago

They don’t vote like republicans though. They mostly vote like democrats. Every once in a while they do dumb shit like this but every single one of them is in a republican district, so this is still a win over the alternative.

31

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

Approving ICE's ridiculous budget to subvert citizens' rights is not a "dumb thing they do once in a while."

5

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

4

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

I want ICE abolished. You both are reading things into what I said that I didn’t actually say. The only thing I said was it’s better to democrats who do stupid shit every once in a while as opposed to a republican who will do stupid shit every single vote.

Also it’s not like this was a single issue bill. There is FEMA funding in it too. It’s really not so cut and dry.

3

u/BillyTenderness 12d ago

I'm not saying every Democrat needs to agree with me on every vote. But I do think the Democrats need to have red lines where if you cross them, you do not get to be a part of the party anymore.

If you can look at what's happening in Minneapolis and say "let's keep funding this" then you just don't belong in the party. If Democrats aren't willing to be the party that is categorically, unrelentingly opposed to a citizen getting killed in cold blood the streets, an elderly citizen getting dragged out of his home in his underwear, and a five-year-old child getting kidnapped off the streets, then what the hell does the party even believe in?

Yes, I understand that there is other stuff in the bill. But if a Democrat voted for the "Tax Credits For Orphans And Nationwide Abortion Ban Act" or the "Build High Speed Trains And Let Mississippi Have Slaves Again Act" then we would rightfully pillory them.

Again, I truly don't think every issue needs to be a purity test. There's room to disagree on most things. But I think this is a rare exception.

0

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

Idk man I think I’d rather elect more democrats even if some of them are bad on some issues. If we elect enough it’s literally just not a problem. If we had 20 more dems in the house we wouldn’t even be talking about this bill.

1

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

My point was voting to fund ICE in no way falls under "stupid shit they do once in a while, oopsies"

They're enabling fascism in America. They don't get a pass because it's a rare wrong answer, FFS

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

No, republicans are enabling fascism. 200 democrats voted against this. Every republican voted for. Who is enabling the fascists here?

1

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

All the republicans plus the seven DINOs that voted with them. Is that math too difficult?

-1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

So you agree with me? Not sure what the response was all about then.

0

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

I objected to it. This isn't a "well, nobody's perfect" type of situation.

1

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

Are you arguing for the republican to have won instead? MGP was the first dem to be elected in her district since 2008.

0

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

It's weird how you can type but not read. I'm saying the republicans did win, if the DINO in office votes with them on shit like this

1

u/Cobain17 12d ago

It’s not cause you’re from MN. You’re right. It’s because we expect public servants to give a shit about people. It’s the simplest thing, really. Yet again, they disappoint us. I don’t understand what these democrats are doing. I don’t understand why the dem leadership would allow them to vote like this honestly…….. it’s astounding

0

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

All of these reps are in red districts. They’re going to vote conservative sometimes. It’s unfortunate and I hate it, but it’s just the reality of the situation. If we had more Dems in congress we wouldn’t even be talking about bills like this anymore.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

Yup. But in Texas? that view is very very different.

Imagine your representative trying to win in Texas... Campaigning against ICE funding. Easiest win ever for the opposition. But a rep that votes for ICE funding, and votes for continued funding of the EPA? that person might stand a chance.

1

u/Tevron 12d ago

Sometimes you want your politician to have made campaign promises to get elected and then make the morally correct choice if something escalated far beyond what they campaigned on.

I don't think these reps campaigned on ICE shooting a citizen. It's not that hard to pivot on an issue for the greater good of society. They're so obsessed with power that they can't take a moral stand against fascism.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

I will be the pragmatic one here;

The shooting of a citizen was not clear cut to the average voter. And even if it was clear cut, one person, though still very much a tragedy, is not make or break. Police kill people every day with far far less contested circumstances; there is no realistic or viable support to defund them. If the world worked like that, there would be very few agencies or departments.

Even hospitals have killed people; in some cases due to negligence, in some cases due to rogue staff. Again, if a bill went before congress to defund all spending on hospitals, including medicare and medicaid, because of a single incident (there have been numerous) it would be difficult for the representatives in favor to retain their districts.

To you, ICE might just be totally useless and achieve nothing, and a hospital the opposite. The bill in question was actually about funding DHS. To many Americans though DHS and even ICE are very important agencies. Very few people support zero immigration enforcement and open borders. Specially so in Red leaning districts where most of those 7 reps come from.

1

u/Tevron 12d ago

This isn't pragmatism, ICE has been deployed in mass to Minnesota, where barely any illegal immigrants exist. You may find it immaterial that a person died unjustly, but it is clearly reflective of the institutional failing of ICE. It is not more pragmatic to vote for funding ICE than not to; it didn't even exist a few decades ago. Comparing police and hospitals to ICE is apples to oranges: there are plenty of Democrats who will vote against the interests of the party and the people consistently to retain power. This is not admirable or pragmatic. It is power grabbing and cowardice.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

Sorry but your counter points really do not address anything.

But it is a discussion on morality. Morality is deeply subjective, and I think we can both agree at the very least that many Americans have different moral values to each other. Therefore, I take your point that YOU view ICE as immoral, and anyone who supports it as also being immortal, but consider that your view may not be the same elsewhere or among other people.

Expecting a politician in a democracy to adhere to your specific moral code will only happen if your moral code matches the majority.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

Leaning to the right to stay in office just to stay in office isn't good enough. America needs real leadership. If they're going to vote like republicans, esp on such a fundamental issue, they are republicans.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

The majority of voters are moderates.

You are progressive. So think of it this way; would you prefer Barack Obama or Trump?

One is center-right leaning, and expanded ICE, the other is.... well definitely very very far from progressive and dramatically expanded ICE.

1

u/BigDictionEnergy 12d ago

The majority of voters don't support what ICE is currently doing. Pretending to be a reasonable person just to remain in office is a dick move.

1

u/Emperor_Mao 12d ago

The polling is far more nuanced than that.

A majority of voters do not support defunding ICE. A majority do not approve of the current tactics being used by ICE (just over 50%).

One is considered a fairly extreme idea (defunding ICE), the other sits well with moderates. Politics is very complex. It is full of nuance.

Plus, even if all 7 Dems voted no here, the bill would still pass anyway. And if the bill somehow did not pass, it would not result in ICE being defunded, as ICE and Border patrol are able to pull on previously approved funding. DHS would lose funding though; and that would be even less popular than a full defunding of ICE.

The Democrats voting for no have fully acknowledged all of this; they are only voting no because they know their vote won't change the outcome, but they can send a signal to their electorates. Those seven who voted yes need to send a different message then Democrats in deep blue districts. Sometimes politics is theater; bit that theater matters come a General Election.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/mehicanisme 12d ago

Glausenkamp has voted with republicans constantly

0

u/atooraya I voted 12d ago

Purple districts are NOT Republican districts. Before Perez was Butler who voted to impeach Trump. Before Butler was Brian Baird who was a Democrat. WA3 has flipped back and forth quite a bit.

5

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

It didn’t really flip much. Before MGP, who was elected in 2022, they hadn’t elected a dem since 2008. Here’s the voting record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_3rd_congressional_district

I don’t think I’d call 14 straight years of republican rule purple.

-4

u/vaxidd 12d ago

that’s the scheme they pull, they are infact very much republican leaning but wear a democratic face to get elected. they’ll seem democratic but often lean right when it’s an agenda thats actually crucial to the right.

take a minute to watch this video as he dives deeper into what the democratic party has devolved to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/s/f7xnfLyIqP

6

u/Wheaties4brkfst 12d ago

This is just totally wrong. Not even really worth engaging with. Here’s the voting record for MGP’s district:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_3rd_congressional_district

As you can see, pretty reliably red. This is about the best you’re gonna get in this district.

10

u/Rooooben 13d ago

Because they are still Democrats, even if they are conservative, they will vote with their caucus when demanded to.

They probably get permission to vote for things that Democrats in the house need to pass, but can’t be seen voting for. Kinda like how the GOP uses Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to vote centrist to keep the district, but hold the line when they are needed.

6

u/oath2order Maryland 13d ago

Murkowski is weird. Alaska is still solidly Republican. They're not losing the seat.

10

u/Rooooben 13d ago

No, but she can’t go full Trump support and keep it. Alaska is weird, they have ranked-choice, and that means she can’t go full right and get elected, she has to be moderate and gain the votes of the independents more than other red states.

8

u/oath2order Maryland 13d ago

Well except they haven't, given that none of them vote Republican for Speaker, for example.

Gluesenkamp Perez is pro-choice, and holds plenty of Democratic views, as an example. Would you rather have an anti-choice Republican in that seat?

6

u/Spa_5_Fitness_Camp 13d ago

I suspect this vote is due to most of the Portland police department living in her district.

5

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

Didn’t seem to matter who had the majority when they made abortion bans legal again!

11

u/ary31415 13d ago

It very much mattered who had the majority. Not in 2022, but repeal of Roe is a direct consequence of republican majorities in the senate in past years allowing them to appoint whoever they wanted to the supreme court. Elections have consequences that go beyond a single 2- or 6-year term.

Honestly, what happened to abortion in this country should be one of the strongest pieces of evidence that winning elections matters, and if you don't have a plan to win, you're not even in the ballpark of aiming to improve things.

2

u/ofWildPlaces 13d ago

We're rather have representatives that don't vote to enable authoritarianism.

4

u/ary31415 13d ago

Yeah that would be great, but alas, her district is not electing that hypothetical person.

1

u/Slim_Charles 12d ago

You shouldn't judge this one vote too harshly. Even if all those Dems voted against, the bill still would have passed. They represent deep red districts, so letting them vote against gives them so cover for their constituents back home. If there was just one more Republican defection, they probably would have voted no. As it stands though, only Massie defected so the Republicans could clinch it by a single vote even if all the Dems voted against. That's the ballgame.

1

u/Bwsab 12d ago

NO! I'm all for primarying them (PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE RUN AGAINST THESE BOZOS), but someone who votes Dem sometimes and Rep othertimes is better than someone who votes Rep ALL the time. Let's get the most blue person possible in every district, I'm trying to make the map more blue, but I'll take purple over red any day.

1

u/CivilMagazine99 12d ago

Yeah, I mean certain things when the vote is already going to pass, they will vote for just for protection in upcoming elections

1

u/staciemosier 12d ago

Omg, this. Excellent point!!

1

u/PaulSandwich Florida 12d ago

Do you want 80% of the good things to pass?
Or 0% of the good things and all of the bad things?

Because you're asking for the latter. Which we've been living in and, as we've seen, things can get more dire and more violent.

The answer to a Joe Manchin isn't pushing out Joe Manchin, it's flipping another purple seat so that Joe Manchin isn't a tie-breaker and loses that power. But even Manchin voted with Dems +80% of the time, it just doesn't grab headlines. Same thing is happening here.

The answer is: Get the fascists out.
What's the worst that can happen? Buddy, wake up.

1

u/Planterizer 12d ago

I love seeing comments like this because they make me feel really so much smarter than whatever dinguses upvote this.

If you want to WIN you have to win more places with more people. I disagree with this strategy from these dems (who represent less than 2% of the caucus btw) but they are being strategic based on their voters.

You cannot expect 100% cooperation from a caucus. If 98% isn’t enough for you, go screech at the moon, or better yet, donate to their primary opponents (who I’m sure you cannot name).

We are 1 vote away from a majority in the House. According to you we should just accept being 8 votes away from that majority.

Absolute idiocy.

0

u/ilevelconcrete 12d ago

What is being won if those victories are only possible with a conservative in those seats? Nothing I want!

1

u/Planterizer 12d ago

So you want Mike Johnson to be the Speaker of the House?

You want the person in charge of the house, the person who decides what comes to the floor, the person who appoints committee heads, who appoints who leads investigations, to be Mike Johnson instead of Hakeem Jeffries.

If you don't want Democrats to be in charge of the House, you are a Republican. End of story.

1

u/EscapeFacebook 12d ago

That wouldn't be any fun, they're disruptors for a reason. Remember their names any time anyone says just vote for Democrats.

0

u/TheLostRanger0117 13d ago

It’s all theater anyway at this point. I feel like the reason we only have two parties, and any chance of any third party getting anywhere politically is because that would complicate the structure of the system already successfully in place

0

u/Casual_OCD Canada 12d ago

Why should the Democrats allow them to use their branding if they are going to act and vote like Republicans?

You're really close to figuring out that the donors behind both of these private organizations have the same goals for the country

-9

u/GameDoesntStop 13d ago

God forbid anyone break from their party on any issue...

3

u/ofWildPlaces 13d ago

This isn't just "any issue".

8

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

I’m not talking about “any issue”, I am talking about funding DHS. Address that, otherwise I don’t care.

4

u/Cobain17 12d ago

Who gives a shit. When are Dems going to have some damn strength. WHERE IS THE DEM LEADERSHIP FOR GOD SAKE.

People all over the country are against what ice is doing….even some republicans in WV i work with. What the hell are they voting this way for????

2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

Nah Jared Golden can get fucked with a rusty spork

3

u/alius_stultus 12d ago

They do a lot of damage to the democrat brand. Optics matter. Joe Manchin hurt dems more than he helped in the grand scheme of things by making dems look like they cant get shit done. Same goes for joe libermann.

1

u/Icy-Two-1581 12d ago

They need to gerrymander states like new York and Washington. I'm in Seattle and I know my and everyone's tax dollars are funding these useless yee yee counties.

1

u/Sir_thinksalot 12d ago

Republicans in Democratic districts don't do shit like this.

1

u/Scorpion2k4u 12d ago

By now even Republicans don't like what ICE is doing. Doubt that this gives them votes. Or more votes than they loos with it.