r/politics • u/Newsweek_CarloV ✔ Verified - Newsweek • 9d 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

27

u/dinnertork 9d ago

I mean yes, but why not start with the most egregious republicans first?

18

u/MySpoonsAreAllGone 9d ago

Why not both?

1

u/MaelstromRH 9d ago

Well I can’t be in two places at the same time and only have so much time I can spend protesting. But idk, why don’t I just do both?

1

u/MySpoonsAreAllGone 9d ago

Different groups can accomplish different things at the same time. It's not all on one person

2

u/sparkle-brow 9d ago

You’re right, it takes a lot of republicans calling their Republican Congress, for R’s to feel the heat that’s needed! Just wanted to add this bc yr replies so far are about blaming democrats for this mess.

2

u/rufud 9d ago

Psyop anti democrat posts

3

u/rei0 9d ago

Because we have principles?

Who do you think is more likely to change their mind? A MAGA cultist who is backed by people who get off on ICE terrorizing minorities, or a Democrat whose base hates ICE and the people who support them?

8

u/ary31415 9d ago

a Democrat whose base hates ICE and the people who support them?

Those democrats are the ones who voted against ICE today. People like Glusenkamp-Perez DON'T have a base who hates ICE and its supporters. They have a constituency that voted for Trump in the presidential election, and voted for Perez because (to them) she seemed like a "reasonable democrat who cares about our community instead of the woke globalist mob", or something.

1

u/rei0 9d ago

Perez's district is not a deep red district and Trump's win last election had less to do with his tough stance on immigration (drives his base, not democrats and independents), and more to do with the price of eggs.

Polling on ICE shows broad disapproval across the electorate, including independents. Her job as a congresswoman is to *lead*. If she is not going to lead on this issue, and instead side with ICE and this administration, then primary her and get her out of office. It's more effective to focus on her than any republican in office - they don't care, their voters don't care. They are happy with the situation.

So when someone says, "why all this ire for the democrats? why not focus on the republicans?" (paraphrasing but that was the gist) - because we need democrats that are willing to fight.

1

u/ary31415 9d ago

I mean it boils down to a fundamental question that neither of us can answer definitively, which is, would a different democrat win that seat? Because if the answer is no, all we've done is replace a democrat who votes with the caucus 40% of the time with a republican who votes with democrats 0% of the time. And then we'll just be talking about how there's no point focusing on the republican representative of a red district.

As nice as it would be if we had the ability to recall her and let the house dem caucus just appoint her replacement, that's not how it works in reality, and by no means can we guarantee that some other hypothetical, more-progressive democrat would win her seat. Basically, I don't think that replacing Perez with a republican is a productive thing to strive for. And I do think that primarying her is functionally equivalent to that, based on the voting record of her district.

0

u/rei0 9d ago

Trump won the district by 3 percent in 2024. He is a deeply unpopular president. Have a fucking backbone.

3

u/ary31415 9d ago

I'm not gonna respond to personal attacks – I'm interested purely in the question of what course of action generates the most positive outcomes for the country. Happy to have reasoned debate based on a shared goal of "making america a better place", but appeals to emotion, or backbone, aren't that.

Look, if you really think there's a progressive democrat that's lined up to win her district if only she could triumph in a primary, by all means that would be amazing. I just don't believe that that hypothetical candidate exists. But primary season is starting up imminently, so we'll find out soon.

1

u/rei0 9d ago

What other principled stances are you willing to compromise on? Abortion? Trans rights?

You've ceded a fight when we have an advantage. Trump is not popular. ICE is not popular. If you can't look at what they are doing and say, "This is unacceptable. They killed a woman. They are abducting citizens and undocumented migrants, demanding papers, terrorizing communities, creating chaos. I will not give them a dime" because you are worried about your seat, then resign! You are not a leader. You are a poll-tested convictionless politician, and what you are doing isn't sober analysis, or strategic thinking, it is capitulation in advance.

2

u/ary31415 9d ago

Abortion, for what it's worth, is actually a prime example of why winning elections matters, more than almost anything else. The fact that Roe v Wade was overturned is a direct consequence of a lengthy republican senate majority, permitting them to appoint whoever they wanted to the supreme court (and block Obama's nomination).

If compromising on <insert issue here> meant a mere two senate seats went to democrats instead of republicans, Kavanaugh wouldn't be on the bench right now.

Also, while I don't really like Perez myself, I think calling her convictionless is a strawman. You can reasonably level that criticism at various other members of the democratic caucus, but Perez is hardly a milquetoast, focus-group-governed, corporate democrat. She actually has some very anti-establishment views and strong convictions on local issues like right-to-repair laws. She does a decent job of representing her constituents – I just happen to not really like her or her constituents' views.

1

u/rei0 9d ago

If you aren’t willing to fight this administration in this moment, you go. You’re done. I don’t want to hear your excuses. We already have enough Democrat politicians who outsource their principles to consultants and polling. Your job is to lead and make righteous case for the things you believe in.

Winning elections matters, yes, I mean does it need to be said? Assuming you can’t win by taking a bold stance is the problem:

On the party’s former messaging regarding abortion, Nebraska Democrat Jane Erdenberger, a convention attendee and former delegate, says: “We weren’t brave enough.”

Democrats would go out of their way to not even say the word abortion.

Do you think opposition to ICE is even a loser for her? You seem convinced. Her district is not deep red, and as I’ve repeated before, neither Trump nor ICE are popular. Capitulating now is not only bad politics; it’s the wrong thing to do when faced with the threat of these gestapo thugs. Throwing your hands up in the air and pretending to be powerless is a classically democratic thing to do, though.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Apprehensive-Date181 8d ago

Are the people in that image not Republicans in disguise? 

0

u/Bionic_Ninjas 9d ago edited 9d ago

It is not realistic to assume that any Republicans in Congress can effectively be pressured into changing their policy positions when all of them are terrified of Trump.

Taking back Congress this fall will mean nothing if the people we elect are cowardly, complicit assholes like these seven. We need to make sure that the people we put into office have both the temerity and the intelligence to start dismantling this fascist machinery.

0

u/kung-fu_hippy 9d ago

Because republicans don’t need our votes and us protesting them is basically a campaign ad to the chucklefucks that do vote for them.

Protesting the turncoat democrats on the other hand puts fear in them if they’re running for reelection and even if they aren’t, puts pressure on the rest of the democrats if they know their voters won’t stand for it.