Why would you come to work if you weren't getting paid at all? I'm not following that. Because you assume you'll get backpay?
That aside, I simultaneously hold several thoughts about this.
The first is: The TSA probably doesn't need to exist at all in its current form; I'm not aware of any evidence they actually do anything to stop actual threats.
The second is: I have sympathy for the folks who work there, who probably are in it mostly to have a stable and non-controversial government job. I'm sure they're going through it, for political reasons that are not their fault.
The third is: There is zero political incentive for either side to cave on this, that I can see, and as somebody who is generally opposed to the behavior of ICE, I think we as the American public will just have to eat it until they are reined in. I'm including myself in that; this has messed with my travel plans and will continue to do so.
But if I were on the other side of the issue, I think I'd hold the exact same opinion: There is no incentive not to continue the shutdown.
You have the causality wrong, other than the hardcore group of preachers the rest are swinging that way because it’s what the congregation wants to hear. Preaching the opposite message will drop attendance even more the it has already dropped and will effectively mean having to close the church.
“Legal” is different from “legitimate” which is different yet again from “good.”
If a party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed—who are steeped in the culture and values and civic sense of those not so nice countries—well that’s legal. But that’s all it is.
Let me put it this way. If the GOP somehow figured out how to flood your city with people from rural Alabama, would you be happy? They would be legal voters, would they not? (The deeply ironic thing is that democrats understand perfectly well that rural Alabama is a product of the culture of the people who built it. But they think that phenomenon somehow ends right at the U.S. border.)
ooooh you're one of _those_. america is for the white's. immigrants should assimilate to Our Western Culture types.
like it or not, those immigrants are your countrymen now. they have an equal vote to you. learn to coexist and compromise. that's the spirit of this country. i don't see any degradation of America here.
should've known better than to engage. that type is always in bad faith (sartre quote blah blah blah)
How do you choose between this argument that immigrants from other cultures are crucially supporting the Democratic party, and your other common argument that immigrants from other cultures are more inclined to vote reactionary?
When you do pick one, do you at least stick with it for the whole day? Or do you switch between them from thread to thread?
Both facts are true, both facts are bad. In the long run, immigrants will culturally change both parties just as they change the whole country. What will happen, and is already happening, is that American politics will begin to resemble Latin American politics. People voting for who promises more free stuff most of the time, punctuated by periods of right-wing authoritarian reaction.
Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed"). That is outside of the scope of a dispassionate analysis, so regrouping at one is a bit disingenuous.
But responding to your new goal posts - if immigration is so central to this dynamic, then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants? Shouldn't the noble non-immigrants see the populism trap and heartily reject it? And since they aren't, wouldn't a better explanation just be that politics in general is decaying towards simplistic populism? And that this focus on immigrants is merely another simplistic populist narrative (from both parties really, even though only one has made it central to their platform).
> Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed")
Wait, hold on. That’s a purely factual statement. Immigrants are 10% of the electorate. If they support one party 2:1, that’s enough to swing many presidential elections. In fact, half of Trump’s win in 2024 is attributable to immigrants going from Biden +27 to Trump +1. Without immigrants (and their kids), it would be very hard for Democrats, in their current form, to win a national election. That’s just a factual statement.
I don’t think being a party that can only win with immigrant support is a “deliberate pillar” of the party. It’s just a consequence of traditional American culture being very different from the cultures in other countries when it comes to views about government.
> then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants?
Do you think Democrats can’t Google these statistics? Or do you think it’s an insignificant share of the electorate? (Foreign-born is 10% and children raised and socialized by foreign born parents is even higher.) Or do you think Democrats’ immigration viewpoints have nothing to do with what’s good for their electoral prospects?
Or do you think Democrats do know all this. But it’s “unhinged” to notice because you think people from Bangladesh will participate in civic governance the same way as a sixth generation Vermonter? Or do you realize they won’t and you’re actually okay with that?
These are genuine questions. I’m struggling to understand your ideological priors here.
They want to (barely) gut the ability of the administration to disappear citizens and to have any sort of training before shooting folks in the face. But fascism gonna fasc.
Why would you come to work if you weren't getting paid at all? I'm not following that. Because you assume you'll get backpay?
That aside, I simultaneously hold several thoughts about this.
The first is: The TSA probably doesn't need to exist at all in its current form; I'm not aware of any evidence they actually do anything to stop actual threats.
The second is: I have sympathy for the folks who work there, who probably are in it mostly to have a stable and non-controversial government job. I'm sure they're going through it, for political reasons that are not their fault.
The third is: There is zero political incentive for either side to cave on this, that I can see, and as somebody who is generally opposed to the behavior of ICE, I think we as the American public will just have to eat it until they are reined in. I'm including myself in that; this has messed with my travel plans and will continue to do so.
But if I were on the other side of the issue, I think I'd hold the exact same opinion: There is no incentive not to continue the shutdown.
And yet Sea-Tac on Tuesday morning didn’t look bad, and with TSA Precheck Touchless, it was a few minutes.
Apparently Sea-Tac has a very low TSA absentee rate:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/sea-tac-bucks-national-...
SeaTac handles this with augmentation from the port. They do an excellent job and have not been impacted by any of the recent shut downs.
Annoying millions of Americans will make them less likely to vote for Repugnants at midterms.
They’ll forget, and vote based on what their evangelical preacher says to do
You have the causality wrong, other than the hardcore group of preachers the rest are swinging that way because it’s what the congregation wants to hear. Preaching the opposite message will drop attendance even more the it has already dropped and will effectively mean having to close the church.
I too would want to bow and pray before a cardboard cutout of our lord and savior, DJT.
[dead]
[flagged]
This is a talking point for the news, not an opinion voters actually have. Especially after all the murders.
Edit: Ugh. Forgot to check the user name
I didn’t say it’s an opinion people have. I said it is factually what’s happening.
huh i wonder why they want to do that?
surely not because ICE unlawfully executed two US citizens on tape in broad daylight
that didn't happen under Obama or Biden. wonder why.
> huh i wonder why they want to do that?
Because immigrants and their foreign-culture socialized kids are the only reason Democrats can win national elections?
but aren't those people legitimate voters? who cares if they're the "only reason" if it's legitimate - sorry, white-y! you lose
“Legal” is different from “legitimate” which is different yet again from “good.”
If a party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed—who are steeped in the culture and values and civic sense of those not so nice countries—well that’s legal. But that’s all it is.
Let me put it this way. If the GOP somehow figured out how to flood your city with people from rural Alabama, would you be happy? They would be legal voters, would they not? (The deeply ironic thing is that democrats understand perfectly well that rural Alabama is a product of the culture of the people who built it. But they think that phenomenon somehow ends right at the U.S. border.)
ooooh you're one of _those_. america is for the white's. immigrants should assimilate to Our Western Culture types.
like it or not, those immigrants are your countrymen now. they have an equal vote to you. learn to coexist and compromise. that's the spirit of this country. i don't see any degradation of America here.
should've known better than to engage. that type is always in bad faith (sartre quote blah blah blah)
How do you choose between this argument that immigrants from other cultures are crucially supporting the Democratic party, and your other common argument that immigrants from other cultures are more inclined to vote reactionary?
When you do pick one, do you at least stick with it for the whole day? Or do you switch between them from thread to thread?
On average, immigrants support democrats. For example in 2016: https://www.statista.com/statistics/632012/voter-turnout-of-.... It’s the same result for Obama versus Romney, etc.
On the other hand they have been trending Republican in the Trump era, and Trump probably won them narrowly: https://www.cato.org/blog/naturalized-immigrants-probably-vo.... But the same analysis says Biden won them by 27 points in 2020.
Both facts are true, both facts are bad. In the long run, immigrants will culturally change both parties just as they change the whole country. What will happen, and is already happening, is that American politics will begin to resemble Latin American politics. People voting for who promises more free stuff most of the time, punctuated by periods of right-wing authoritarian reaction.
Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed"). That is outside of the scope of a dispassionate analysis, so regrouping at one is a bit disingenuous.
But responding to your new goal posts - if immigration is so central to this dynamic, then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants? Shouldn't the noble non-immigrants see the populism trap and heartily reject it? And since they aren't, wouldn't a better explanation just be that politics in general is decaying towards simplistic populism? And that this focus on immigrants is merely another simplistic populist narrative (from both parties really, even though only one has made it central to their platform).
> Your original comment included the implication that this was a deliberate pillar of the Democratic party. ("[one] party can only win by people who are zero or only one generations away from countries that aren’t very well governed")
Wait, hold on. That’s a purely factual statement. Immigrants are 10% of the electorate. If they support one party 2:1, that’s enough to swing many presidential elections. In fact, half of Trump’s win in 2024 is attributable to immigrants going from Biden +27 to Trump +1. Without immigrants (and their kids), it would be very hard for Democrats, in their current form, to win a national election. That’s just a factual statement.
I don’t think being a party that can only win with immigrant support is a “deliberate pillar” of the party. It’s just a consequence of traditional American culture being very different from the cultures in other countries when it comes to views about government.
> then why is most of the support for the current authoritarian reactionary promising more free stuff still coming from non-immigrants?
Because most people are non-immigrants.
Your views are getting more unhinged by the day fyi.
You used to have interesting, if tediously contrarian things to say. But now it's just strawmans and weird takes like the above.
Serious question: what exactly is unhinged about my point? Naturalized citizens supported Hilary Clinton 2-1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/632012/voter-turnout-of-.... They supported Biden by 27.
Do you think Democrats can’t Google these statistics? Or do you think it’s an insignificant share of the electorate? (Foreign-born is 10% and children raised and socialized by foreign born parents is even higher.) Or do you think Democrats’ immigration viewpoints have nothing to do with what’s good for their electoral prospects?
Or do you think Democrats do know all this. But it’s “unhinged” to notice because you think people from Bangladesh will participate in civic governance the same way as a sixth generation Vermonter? Or do you realize they won’t and you’re actually okay with that?
These are genuine questions. I’m struggling to understand your ideological priors here.
Obama - famous for not enforcing immigration.
They want to (barely) gut the ability of the administration to disappear citizens and to have any sort of training before shooting folks in the face. But fascism gonna fasc.