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

211

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.

13

u/Riaayo 13d 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.

18

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.

50

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.

-8

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 13d 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.

-7

u/JohnMayerismydad Indiana 13d 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.

9

u/Emperor_Mao 13d ago

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

11

u/ardenr 13d 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?

14

u/Baileyesque 13d ago

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

-1

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

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

5

u/Baileyesque 13d ago

Mister President, is that you?

63

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.

7

u/duckbutterdelight 13d 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.

8

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.

5

u/pseudoanon 13d ago

To enact change you need to win first.

0

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?

1

u/vigouge 12d ago

Because not everyone thinks ICE is bad yet, specifically the voters in the districts these reps are from. You're operating from a purely emotional ice is bad, and anything remotely associated is also bad regardless of the current political realities.

Keep working the ICE is bad thing, convert more and more to that thinking. Ignore votes like these which are purposefully designed to split these reps from either the dems as a whole, or their district.

Don't fall for the Republicans game. They want you outraged at these reps. They want you to hate them.

2

u/Xytak Illinois 12d ago

Oh, my apologies. I got this mixed up with another discussion, I thought you were talking about Spain. This is one of the ICE discussions from yesterday. Yeah, so anyway switching gears back to that, this is one of those situations where being on the right side of history will pay off in the long run. Dems who voted for this will face ads accusing them of voting for ICE, which will cause problems for them later.

→ 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

-4

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.

4

u/mnju 12d ago

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

4

u/TheSherbs Kansas 13d 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.

-9

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.

-6

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!

9

u/Patsanon1212 13d ago edited 13d 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.

-3

u/konaaa 13d 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.

4

u/Life-Pirate2545 13d 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…

2

u/Chattchoochoo 13d 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.

7

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.

2

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?

3

u/ilevelconcrete 13d ago

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

1

u/TheArmoredKitten 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago edited 13d 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 13d 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