you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 2 years ago (5 children)

I'm not american, but isn't calling yourself not progressive kinda... Shit? Why would you ever say that you don't like progress?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    He didn’t say that. He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.

    Whoever wrote the article is trying to speak on behalf of an entire political group called “Progressives” by claiming everyone in the group came to a unanimous decision to not discuss immigration (this isn’t true).

    So the writer of the article is claiming Fetterman isn’t a part of the group of Progressives because Fetterman is willing to do his job by being diplomatic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The piece literally quotes Fetterman saying that he is not a progressive. Not sure what you’re talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Then you didn’t read the article because he never said “I don’t like progress”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    “I’m not a progressive,” Fetterman told NBC News. “I just think I’m a Democrat that is very committed to choice and other things. But with Israel, I’m going to be on the right side of that. And immigration is something near and dear to me, and I think we do have to effectively address it as well.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    What you think I’m saying: ‘he didn’t say “I’m not a progressive”’

    What BruceTwarzan said: “Why would you ever say that you don't like progress?”

    I said: “he didn’t say that” (he didn’t say “I don’t like progress”)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    He said he is willing to have a discussion about immigration policy with republicans.

    "Let's hear the literal fascists who compare even legal immigrants to vermin and invading armies out. I'm sure they'll be willing to reach a reasonable compromise" 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You can’t just throw a temper tantrum and expect to get your way. Diplomacy is required to actually get things done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Who said anything about a temper tantrum? Could you please try and refrain from using ridiculous pro-capitulation strawmen?

    Calmly refusing to negotiate with fascists about one of their favorite "if we give an inch, we're traitors" issues because you know nothing good will come from it isn't having a temper tantrum. It's being realistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    So you don’t think our politicians should ever be diplomatic or just when on the subject of immigration reform?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't think politicians should grandstand for cheap points about good faith negotiations with domestic terrorists whose re-election depends on negotiating in bad faith or not negotiating at all.

    I wouldn't brag about negotiating with cats about them going vegan either, and that would have a BETTER chance of bearing fruit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So regardless of the subject you want our government in gridlock and our politicians to not get anything done. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Nope. Please pack your ridiculous strawmen away. You're sounding mighty Republican with your bad faith arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    How is it NOT a strawman to pretend that I ever advocated for government gridlock?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If politicians don’t negotiate across the aisle when majorities in Congress are slim then nothing will get done.

    Did you or did you not imply that Fetterman shouldn’t negotiate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I said that nothing good could come from pretending to negotiate immigration with radically anti-immigrant fascists who aren't even PRETENDING to negotiate in good faith.

    Three things can result:

    1. No changes

    2. Changes for the worse and nothing else (by far the most likely)

    3. Tiny changes for the better on one or two very specific things in exchange for massive systemic change for the worse.

    You're pretending that the GOP is a normal and legitimate political party rather than a fundamentally dishonest fascist movement.

    Is your name Neville? Because you're being very Chamberlain right now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So again, you’re saying he shouldn’t negotiate with republicans which will result in nothing getting done.

    How is what I said a strawman?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How is what I said a strawman?

    By inferring that what I want is "nothing getting done", when in reality I've been very clear that what I want is for things to not get worse.

    When you give concessions to fascists, things get worse. STOP pretending that the GOP is a legitimate party operating in good faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The GOP as a party supports fascism yes. But individual members of Congress are on a spectrum and can be influenced to vote in our best interests.

    That’s why there are almost always some members that aren’t voting along their party lines. It’s happened like this since the inception of our government.

    That’s why diplomacy is important.

    Just look at how democrats won concessions from the house on the spending bill recently and made republicans look stupid in the process.

    That happened because of diplomacy. Your approach would’ve resulted in a government shutdown instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    individual [GOP] members of Congress are on a spectrum and can be influenced to vote in our best interests.

    If you truly believe that, I have a mountain chalet in Florida to sell you.

    Name one time since 2016 that anything good came from negotiating with the GOP on immigration. Hell, name one time in this MILLENNIUM.

    there are almost always some members that aren’t voting along their party lines

    Anything even resembling change for the better on immigration being amongst the exceptions that makes your "almost" necessary.

    Just look at how democrats won concessions from the house on the spending bill

    Spending is not the same thing as immigration. While fascists don't like social programs that benefit those who need help, they don't have an automatic visceral fear and hatred of them like they do with immigrants.

    made republicans look stupid in the process.

    As an aside, they were already doing that themselves

    Your approach would’ve resulted in a government shutdown instead.

    No. The Republicans hold the federal government hostage every time raising the debt ceiling comes up. It's as much part of what they do as demagougery in general is.

    Letting them persecute and otherwise abuse immigrants more or less doesn't change that. It just lets them persecute and otherwise abuse immigrants more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The idea is to negotiate in good faith to show that is our stance and not give in to bad faith negotiations.

    If we don’t negotiate at all then there’s no way forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If we don’t negotiate at all then there’s no way forward.

    Not true. If your ideas are good enough and you show that you're not too weak and/or corrupt to implement them, you get big enough majorities to bypass the GOP completely, which you should then do.

    It's worse to negotiate in good faith with those that are negotiating in bad faith than to not negotiate at all, since those negotiating in bad faith have no reason to give any concessions and every reason to demand concessions from their opposition.

    Same goes for arguing I'm good faith with people who are either arguing in bad faith or basing their entire argument on a commonly believed false premise.

    So I'm gonna let you go gaslight someone else now. Have the day you deserve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    You’re ignoring the optics of not negotiating. This is politics. How you present yourself impacts voters’ opinions.

    No one is gaslighting or making strawman arguments or any other psych buzzwords over here.

    You have a good one too. I’m glad the internet allows us to have these conversations because I think it is important to have discorse with people of opposing views.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Because two comments back you literally said it was non negotiable. What the ever fuck do you want to happen?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I didn't say it was non-negotiable, I said that Republicans have no willingness to negotiate in good faith and as such, nothing good comes from pretending that they will.

    Don't misquote me to me. It confirms what I and anyone else reading already suspected: that you're either being dishonest or having trouble understanding plain English.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    This isn't a let's hash out an immigration deal where both sides get a little of what they want regarding immigration reform, it's submitting to hostage takers for an entirely unrelated issue that shouldn't really be partisan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Progressive is often used as a blanket term that basically means that you are farther left than the Democratic party. Not that he doesn't like progress, just that he is not pursuing the end of capitalism or something in that direction if even slightly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Progressives are basically the left wing of the neoliberal consensus but not "left" if we're talking like actual left ideologies ie socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I always understood it otherwise, that progressive was more to the left, outside that neoliberal democrat stance. But these things change over time and I may have always just misunderstood.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    "Progressive" is a faction of Democrats. They aren't the only people that support progress.

    I don't consider myself a progressive, because I disagree with about 30% (in very ballpark terms) of current progressive policy choices. It's not hard to imagine Fetterman feels similarly.

    I absolutely disagree with Fetterman that immigration should be curtailed at all - Democrats are not a monolith. Most Democrat representatives disagree with some policy or other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago*

    Exactly I don't consider myself a progressive either for similar reasons and I don't agree with the notion of progress they seem to believe in. I'm a materialist and believe progress is contingent on economic and material conditions and that people's notions of progress are relative to that. "Progress" begs the question progress to what and for them it's often progress in a capitalist individualist sense, where more of the best people get the best stuff. Progress to them would be like more minorities represented in executive level careers but progress to me would mean the system that creates these disparities doesn't exist. Progressives think capitalism can be redeemed by appealing to its own morality basically.

    https://youtu.be/kOk05dKl8-c?si=gXlco_tfUU9fmiPm

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    It's all just labels, it's not really the etemology of the word that people care about, but the ideas it represents. The opposite of progressive is conservative. I think if you were to ask anyone in particular, they would say that they'd like to progress some things and conserve others. It's just the label for who tends to do more of each. So it's less about saying your not "for progress" and more about showing what ideas you align with. And many conservatives wouldn't call progressive ideas "progress" if they were implemented; they think it'd be bad for society. So it's all just words at the end of the day to signify what ideas you align with

  • source
  • parent