Being a shill for the Israeli apartheid regime is the LEAST “maverick” thing you can possibly do in American politics.
To break with the left to join everyone else in enabling genocide isn’t a brave and principled stand. It’s ignorance at best, but more likely morally bankrupt cowardice.
Go home NBC, you’re drunk on neoliberal gaslighting. Again.
Morally bankrupt, fiscally wealthy
Yeah, that’s usually how it be in Congress 😮💨
Having a conversation about immigration isn’t a bad thing. Going in to that conversation looking to shove your view points down the others side throat IS a bad thing.
The reality is that we need immigrants to fill a ton of holes in our workforce but we also need to fix the system to allow legal immigration to be an easier process and to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration.
I don’t have the answers, but I know the problems exist and there are much smarter people who could help get ideas moving if the ideologues would get out of the way.
Yeah, most people against illegal immigration have no idea how arduous and expensive the process actually is. It’s not as simple as going to the border and saying, “One greencard please.”
I’m against illegal immigration, but the solution I’d like to see is a more streamlined process so people wouldn’t need to pay coyotes to smuggle them across with no guarantee they’d even survive the trip.
If they want to come be productive members of society, why stop them?
Because America, by large, has been built upon immigrants coming over and shutting the door behind them so others can’t get their success.
We’ve done it as English colonists, we’ve done it during the Industrial Revolution, we’ve done it in the early 1900s, and we’re doing it now. It’s sadly a trend that we, as a country, never grew out of.
One point I’ve brought up successfully with a Trumpy acquaintance has been how big Agri business relies so much on illegal workers (throw child labor in there too when they talk about pedos). I ask him why if politicians complain so much, why didn’t they really do anything to stop the demand for undocumented workers when they had the power? Then ask him if he likes cheap fruit and chicken, and how Tyson and Dole would have to double or triple the prices of it all if they paid a fair wage.
Unfortunately, He usually shuts up and says Hunter probably cashed in on it too or some other bullshit, but I can see some gears grinding over when it hits him at first.
It’s a ridiculous process to get a work visa even for skilled and educated people with money. I had a gf who had a PhD in material science with a wealthy family. She was working at a National Lab and was worried if she didn’t get a permanent position there, she’d be scrambling to find a job that would give her an extension or she’d have to move back to Europe.
deleted by creator
Apparently it used to be easier to get seasonal work permits for Mexicans wishing to work in the US, and it was common for workers to go back to Mexico after the work season. Most did not want to permanently move to the US, but preferred to return to stay with their families. Those visas were curtailed under Reagan, so they became much harder to obtain. Crossing back to Mexico became harder, so now more just cross the border and then never return. If we still had a reasonable system in place to allow temporary workers in, I’m sure we’d see less illegal crossings.
@phoneymouse @EatYouWell@lemmy.worl Grew up on a small family farm in San Joaquin Valley. Annually we hired the same “braceros” who migrated with the crops for harvest. Why did Reagan stop this?
Because Republicans hate anyone who isn’t a rich white man.
@EatYouWell I’m thinking it might have to do with Reagan’s deeply-seated animosity toward the UFW/Chavez business while he was governor?
Reagan is the reason the country is currently fucked, so probably.
We need immigrants because they make the nation better, not to “fix holes” in the workforce. They’re people. Let’s talk about them like they deserve humanity.
The person you replied to is discussing the pragmatic reality that immigrants are necessary for our economy. It’s not dehumanizing to point out that from an economic standpoint they’re necessary. It seems like you’re just looking for offense.
Thank you.
I was speaking simply from a pragmatic, economic focus because the people opposed to immigration don’t care about the human side. Of course they’re people and we should care about them as people, but the conversation is helped along if you understand what people on the other side of the convo find important.
Japan is a key example of what happens when you reject immigration. Their work force is shrinking at a rate that will have significant negative impacts on their economy. Advanced society’s have fewer children, so immigration is needed to keep the work force growing. If all you care about is capitalism and economic growth, you should care about ensuring we allow immigration to continue, legally, at a high rate.
I’m not offended in the slightest. I’m white and born in the US. I just happen to think immigration raises the tide for everyone. Usually when people talk about filling gaps in our economy, they don’t mean doctors and lawyers.
Seems like you got real defensive of someone else when I simply raised the point that as a nation of immigrants, the reason to continue allowing immigration is continuing that tradition and improving our country by welcoming everyone.
Immigration does benefit everyone. But the immigration usually discussed are asylum claims and “illegal” entries across the southern border, because ignorant people find it scary. Those folks typically aren’t doctors and lawyers, they’re typically poor with few options, and can be/are usually hugely beneficial for the US. People with resources, like doctors or lawyers typically can enter under different visa classifications.
Not defensive at all, simply pointing out that there’s nothing wrong with speaking realistically about immigration and economics. There’s plenty of dehumanizing language used with regard to immigration but I don’t think the commenter used or intended that.
Asylum seekers come from all walks of life. Look at the people fleeing Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. They were welcomed to the US with open arms, even when they came here illegally. Look at past Central American migrant waves like in the 70s and 80s. Who do the US demonize? Poor central americans fleeing the same violence that rich ones were fleeing. Who received amnesty from Reagan in the 80s? The rich ones.
Violence sends everyone running for asylum, we simply choose which ones to call “illegal” and which ones to call model immigrants.
I don’t take anything anybody is here as a defense of a broken immigration system, or as offensive to people seeking asylum, a better life, escaping abusive home life, or whatever reason they decided to up and leave everything they’ve ever known. I’m just highlighting the other aspects of the topic, because even those of us that don’t intend to talk down about immigrants tend to use the language that’s been played out for the past 50 years or so.
bostonbanarama got defensive because you were attacking
If
Let’s talk about them like they deserve humanity.
is attacking, then I don’t know what to say to you.
You attacked bostonbanarama’s character by choosing to interpret what they wrote in the worst way possible. You accused them of dehumanizing, which is a social crime. A person “convicted” of a social crime can suffer serious consequences.
When you cast yourself as the lone defender of good, you accuse everyone around you of being bad. An accusation is an attack on a person’s character.
lmfao You are so far off in the deep end that I fear there’s no lifeline to help you. I hope some day you’re able to not be so fragile, but I doubt it.
Man I’ve said this over and over again. If illegal immigration is such a problem take a damn look at your system. My dad just thinks I’m some crazy liberal though for suggesting it. I live in a border state and I’ve been hearing the same empty talking points since I was a child.
I’m not following what you’re saying.
He’s saying it’s obvious we need to reform legal immigration.
I’m not following what you’re saying.
So, when TheCrispyDud mentions:
If illegal immigration is such a problem take a damn look at your system.
I assume that the mention of the “system” is a reference to how many industries in the United States would suffer, falter, or outright collapse without undocumented workers laboring for less money or at higher productivity rates than we get from legal residents at minimum wage.
We could outright stop all instances of undocumented workers functioning in this country’s workforce if we simply properly enforced all of the existing penalties. Every time this has been seriously approached as a solution in small doses, it’s eventually been rolled back because of the economic impact.
Fruit, Retail Trade, Dairy, Construction, heck, most of our Agriculture, etc, are estimated to be somewhere between 10% and 20% staffed by undocumented workers, typically performing the functions they can’t get citizens to work in for bottom level wages. Depending on the area of the country you’re in, the numbers are sometimes higher than that. California’s picking, Wisconsin’s Dairy, Midwest Residential Roofing, etc.
If you have to prove you’re legally allowed to work for every job, there are no jobs for undocumented immigrants. Problem (the one that conservatives complain about anyway) “solved”.
It just creates a slough of NEW problems that we don’t have solutions for in our current system.
One ostensibly feasible solution should be to ease the path to immigration or work visas for people who are willing to do the jobs that American Citizens don’t seem to want.
If you don’t feel qualified to fix these problems yourself, how can you distinguish the ideologues from the experts?
That’s awful logic- what you’re saying is if you don’t have a solution how can you point out any issues with the situation which makes no sense You don’t have to have a solution to point out an issue that exists
I don’t need to have a solution to Israel Palestine to be able to tell that bombing a shit ton for innocent people is fucked up and morally abhorrent
He says it’s “near and dear” to him which is definitely bullshit. What should be near and dear to him are actual issues to his constituents. Things like, wage gaps, infrastructure, opioid crisis, affordable homes and health care.
I’ll agree with him on one thing; he’s not progressive.
You’ve seen the contents of his office mailbox? Is it not possible that he is reacting to his constituents concerns?
Politician uses leftists to get elected, immediately backs off leftism once in office.
“Maverick” my ass. This isn’t a break from the left, it is a stomping down of the coalition that already had to fight tooth and nail against the Democratic Party pushing Conor Lamb.
A mAvEriCk SiDe
he’s not some sort of independent thinker charting his own way through the murky waters of american politics, he’s bought and paid for with a quarter million dollars of Israeli lobbyist money. I used to believe in Fetterman. I walked picket lines with him in Pittsburgh. I campaigned to help him and Tom Wolf into the governor’s mansion in PA. I see this as a betrayal and he’ll get neither a vote nor a kind word from me for the rest of his career.
Wait, so you agree with him so much on most issues that you campaigned for him, but disagree with him on a couple of difficult hot-button issues, and so you will never have another kind word for him? This kind of hyper-polarization from one extreme of support to complete vilification is what is wrong with American politics. Politics equals compromise, not going balls-out to completely crush anyone who is slightly further left or right of your position.
Yep, I’m a single issue voter when it comes to genocide.
Believe it or not, a person can be a supporter of Israel without being in favour of killing babies. Israel is an entire country full of different people and opinions. Just like the USA and every other country.
a person can be a supporter of Israel without being in favour of killing babies
maybe you can be, but he’s not. he’s got a quarter million dollars of AIPAC money in his pocket and he doesn’t give a fuck who the IDF kills or why, he’s gonna do everything he can to send them more of MY money.
Well, I assume you have met him so you know him better than I do. I would have to defer to your judgment if you really believe he is that kind of guy. I mean he would have to be a very evil person if he genuinely does not care how many people the IDF kills.
Do you think he has changed since you campaigned for him, or was he always a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Or is he just prioritizing the needs of his constituents and fellow members of the working class over those of foreigners? Or is he saying that he supports Israel overall in the big picture, and is willing to give Israel wide latitude for a short period of time to deal with Hamas, even if it means many civilian deaths?
It’s unsurprising, especially since even legitimate leftists often balk at immigration due to the rampant myths around it. Still an obvious and better choice than Oz, or any Republican, and important blueprint for outreach to actual moderates.
God only knows how he can support Israel on moral grounds while being in a position where he has access and time to study the issue, though. Pre-existing biases, one supposes.
Pre-existing biases, one supposes.
Not to mention the AIPAC campaign funding that would suddenly dry up. It amazes me how many of our elected leaders are being paid off by a foreign government
How much has he taken?
Jesus fucking damnit. It’s like that first moment in House of Cards when you’re like “omfg and this is the blue team?!”
I know US Senate is as prestigious as you get after the executive election, but if this is the people’s guy, how tf we ever going to break up the two party system in the upper house?
as soon as you say the phrase “blue team” you betray a bit of a misunderstanding. don’t feel bad, people work really hard to perpetuate that misunderstanding. the blue team doesn’t exist. the red team only kind of exists. the people you unconsciously split into the “blue team” and the “red team” are on the Money Team, and we’re not.
I understand your point and mostly agree with you. But I will never ever ever say both sides are the same
This is what the blue team does: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/new-california-laws-2024-18552414.php
all right cracking down on that “excited delirium” horseshit is eliminating a very real and very deadly police overstep. I’m into it.
I forget which interview it was exactly but Ryan Grim had some information on this. He brokered a deal with AIPAC to stop them donating to his opponent and get them donating to him instead.
Aaargh. Does he get a pass for surviving the game to get in a position to do the right thing?
Dunno specifics. but their lobby gives to pretty much everyone; so long as there for the line where Israel is concerned.
A fair amount do the pro-Israel statements are to either protect or get more of those donations
I don’t think so, I think it’s from misplaced sentiment and misunderstanding of some kind. Fetterman doesn’t just support Israel, he openly mocks people who are concerned about Palestinians. There was a time he ran into some protestors near DC, and he went into his office to grab an Israeli flag and
wrapped himself in it, laughing at themwaved it at them when they were accosted by authorities.Like. That’s fucked up. The article mentioned that there was a big shooting in a synagogue when he was in office, and I get the impression he’s conflating Israel with Jews in general, and he feels some sort of guilt he’s making up for.
It’s incredibly disappointing. I was really happy with him and thought he’d be a great president. I seriously appreciated the attention he brought up mental health when he very publicly took care of himself. My father had a stroke when I was younger and had had speech issues ever since, so Fetterman’s stroke and recovery were very relatable to me on a personal level.
Never meet your heroes, I guess.
Edit: Some corrections after I found the article again.
Never meet your heroes, I guess.
I wholeheartedly agree, such a disappointment. He took a very weird turn, and it was so sudden.
It took some time for it to sink into me just how awful his behavior was. At first I was disturbed but didn’t think I’d change my general feelings about him, but as time goes on, it really hits me just how fucked up this is of him. He’s still better than the best Republican, but damn if I don’t want to see him primaried. He’s the same as Manchin in my opinion now, just with better policies.
Tangentially, this is also why I’m wary of self righteous politicians who don’t apologize nor admit fault. They’re probably going to be wrong about something eventually, and they’ll learn nothing from it.
The Philly suburbs have a pretty influential Jewish population. Nothing like NYC, of course, but they’re politically active and probably donate a lot of money.
But Fetterman has also tried very hard to listen to everyone in the state. He did a tour of all of the counties - even blood red places like Clearfield and Perry - to get people’s impressions on marijuana legalization. It’s one thing I respect him for.
Sadly, I disagree with most of my fellow state citizens on this issue so I have to go along with the majority and watch children die.
Yay democracy.
The Philly suburbs have a pretty influential Jewish population. Nothing like NYC, of course, but they’re politically active and probably donate a lot of money.
I would very much like to think that “Jewish” and “supportive of Israel’s genocidal tactics” are much less synonymous than this comment assumes.
American Jews, in fact, are more likely to be friendly to the cause of Palestinian independence and dignity than the general American population.
Considering how many evangelical Christians are Zionists because they want to trigger the End Times and get Raptured, that doesn’t surprise me at all.
Yes, and thank you for mentioning that. A lot of my friends from high school are Jewish and they taught me that it was possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic. They would hate being lumped in with those who support these actions, at least a few of them.
Why are children dying? I don’t understand…I’m missing something here.
Half of the people living in Gaza are children
Have you… read the news for the past two months?
segweyed to weed then back to Gaza. I think the guy you are replying to thought it meant he disagreed on weed and the prevailing opinion was somehow causing children to die.
“Segued” is the spelling, but otherwise I think your read is spot on.
Ha ya, had a brainfart. Looked at it and thought “that can’t be right” then hit send.
I suspect the question was framed through the lens of the maryjane comment. That was my initial reading until I completed the statement.
What happened to you, Fetterman. You used to be cool.
ugh… and he was doing so well…
I’m not american, but isn’t calling yourself not progressive kinda… Shit? Why would you ever say that you don’t like progress?
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.
The piece literally quotes Fetterman saying that he is not a progressive. Not sure what you’re talking about.
Then you didn’t read the article because he never said “I don’t like progress”
“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.”
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”)
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” 🙄
You can’t just throw a temper tantrum and expect to get your way. Diplomacy is required to actually get things done.
Let me know when you see Republicans try any. I haven’t seen it during my lifetime, but hey, there’s always this time 🙄
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.
So you don’t think our politicians should ever be diplomatic or just when on the subject of immigration reform?
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.
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.
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.
To be fair, Fetterman is eager to progress genocide.
Progressives are basically the left wing of the neoliberal consensus but not “left” if we’re talking like actual left ideologies ie socialism.
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.
Leftists generally call themselves leftists. Progressives are usually Social Democrats, ie Scandinavian Capitalism.
“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.
“Progressive” is a faction of Democrats. They aren’t the only people that support progress.
Yeah, there are people to their left.
There are also people to their, uh, whichever direction the anti-authoritarian axis is.
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.
It is a label that is applied to a small group of democrats only, as far as I understand.
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
Typical neoliberal scumbag. Buddy up to the left to get elected then as soon as you’re on the inside and have the power to actually chnge something, unleash your inner cliche villain and start loudly supporting the worst things you possibly can.
And I was beginning to wonder how dense the one who stated the following about Fetterman
When he said he was 100% for Israel and I saw he took AIPAC and other money from Israeli lobbies and said he was not a progressive my support ended. He lied to us. I hope to vote for a progressive opponent in his next primary.
To be fair, even the blue states are feeling the resource and budget pinch with immigration and are aggressively calling for federal assistance. His views aren’t exactly out of line with his constituents on that issue.
Who are you referencing here? Illinois is the only one I remember, and their solution isn’t to close the border, it’s to speed up processing and stop a giant state from intentionally overstressing a smaller state. California is on the border and handling things just fine, but when suddenly all of Texas’s immigrants get redirected to a state that doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to handle them, it’s a problem.
New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, etc etc. Lots of stories from AP and Reuters in Google News if you start searching for teams like “migrants” and “federal.”
Massachusetts is another one that wants the federal government to fast track work authorizations and the like, and again, stop the targeted use of migrant busses to overload a small state’s infrastructure. For New York it seems like it’s mostly NYC and Adams is kind of a DINO.
There’s a lot of subtext smuggled into the original statement regarding blue state opinions on migration, and the concerns are entirely different from red state xenophobia.
Yeah I think even Dems are seeing polling shift on this issue. By choosing to do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of border crossings (which Kamala Harris seems to have done) the party is realizing they’re handing the GOP a huge political weapon that can (and will) be used against all of them, even if they’re far from the border.
edit: Lol at y’all downvoting legitimate sources. Sorry facts hurt your fee-fees.
Anyone who would vote to limit immigration is so anti-American that I cannot believe they are listened to at all.
I recognize the reality of it, but it’s just a bag full of insanity to me.
Anyone who would vote to limit immigration is so anti-American that I cannot believe they are listened to at all.
You’re dissatisfied with your party’s actions and wish they would listen to their left?
Do tell.
That doesn’t change the fact that polling has shifted on the issue. Whether or not the shift lasts or not, who can say, but people clearly are cooling to the idea In a way they haven’t since Obama was in office. By your metric, Fetterman might have irrational and un-American constituents, but they’re the folks who put him in office, unfortunately. I can’t fault him for trying to read the room and find a bipartisan compromise. Whether it comes with “limiting immigration” or not, an overhaul to our outdated immigration system has been overdue since the 1990s.
By your metric, Fetterman might have irrational and un-American constituents, but they’re the folks who put him in office, unfortunately.
I agree. I dislike them, not him. He’s doing his job.
I may disagree with his position, but I don’t dislike him as a person.
It’s the same with the kids in cages thing, like this is what America is, and what it must do to maintain its position in the world. You have to be anti-American to sincerely criticize it. The political system absorbs and mediates the outrage so the system can maintain itself. Biden committed more funds to the border wall and immigration policy still puts kids in cages, and it always will so long as America is what it is. Climate change and mass migration will require America to become more harsh, just like the European countries who let the migrant ships sink with families drowning in front of their eyes. Party politics can point the blame so nobody has to feel guilty.
Whoops! No re-election for you!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is breaking with progressives on hot-button issues with his fiery support for Israel and calls for Democrats to engage on tougher immigration laws, disappointing some on the left as he shows an independent streak.
Fetterman insisted he can be pro-immigration while also favoring policies to restrict the flow of migration to manageable levels, disagreeing with progressives who oppose new limits on asylum and bash some of the ideas in the negotiations as cruel.
The senator added that while it’s “not ideal to have this conversation” about asylum and parole policy in connection with an aid package for Israel and Ukraine, “it’s still one that we should have,” given that Republicans have made it an essential condition to advance the supplemental bill.
Fetterman’s fierce and unwavering support for Israel breaks sharply with demands by Sanders to withdraw U.S. military aid and has drawn searing criticism from the left as the Palestinian death toll soars amid the Israeli government’s bombing campaign in retaliation for the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.
“For a lot of Republicans, it’s been a pleasant surprise,” said Christopher Nicholas, a longtime GOP strategist based in Pennsylvania, referring to Fetterman’s stances on Israel, border policy and Menendez.
Fetterman chief of staff Adam Jentleson said the senator has “always had” the policy positions he’s espousing today, even though Republicans wanted to paint him as a socialist in 2022 and “some folks on the left are pretending” he has since changed his beliefs.
The original article contains 1,044 words, the summary contains 247 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
A liberal politician with a spine?
The ‘progressive democrats’ are going to lose their minds. Their in group out group demanding bs is rivaling that of the Republicans. So much for freedom of thinking or ideas.
I’m curious to see how this guy rolls over the next few years but this is nice to see.
ETA. Wanting to curtail people entering the country without following the process and getting rid of someone who is legitimately accused of being a crook doesn’t seem like they should be questionable. Supporting one of Americas closest Ally’s is questionable these days though. That’s fair game.
Our elected representatives need to be able to use their brains and their consciences and represent us over their political parties. Good for him standing up. If you aren’t aware -represent us is working on making it so this can happen more often.
Why does everyone act like this guy is some every man Savior? He’s a silver spoon baby with a trust fund who can’t even be bothered to dress like a professional adult. I’ve never liked the guy, always had a phony vibe to him
He was a lib who actually put effort into a campaign and built up a coalition of voters around essentially the progressivish platform that Biden had promised as his compromise with Sanders.
For many Fetterman represented an actual movement of the Democratic party away from the neoliberal establishment status quo. His campaign largely felt like it proved that being such a break from the DNC norm.
So he has been a real bummer.
We should start running fake centrists. They’ll get party support and will only have to fight one party instead of two. Then when they get into office, they can start supporting progressive causes they didn’t run on.
And watch the party’s policy of defending incumbents against primary challengers instantly evaporate into nothingness.
