this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
81 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3241 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
81
It’s scarier to refer to immigrants as ‘military-aged males’ than ‘men’ (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 9 months ago by spaduf to c/politics@lemmy.world
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/6523492

Paywall Removed

all 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:

So, when Johnson rose to speak on the House floor Wednesday — his first such speech since being elected speaker — and began to talk about immigration, it was through the lens of a politician seeking to effect a political outcome.

Johnson’s speech went on at some length, focusing on Republican resistance to new legislation aimed at addressing the border and his party’s efforts to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

That “by design” line is eyebrow-raising, given the popularity on the right of the conspiracy theory that Democrats are throwing open the entry doors to the country for some putative future political gain.

This idea that immigrants are inherently frightening is a key part of the Republican discussion of the border, given that it heightens a sense of urgency and failure regarding the administration.

It’s all framing: Johnson wants listeners to hear the phrase “military aged” and assume that the immigrants are dangerous and intend to harm Americans.

So, a 24-year-old guy looking for work who comes into the United States is suddenly lumped into an imaginary army of invaders — bolstering not only Johnson’s rhetoric but the argument of Republicans such as Texas Gov.

The original article contains 1,119 words, the summary contains 196 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How bizarre, considering immigrants are famously more likely to fight FOR our country and not against it. Why do conservatives hate our military servicemen and women?

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because being in the military shows you how much dumb bullshit you have to inject into day-to-day life for free^1^ housing, food and medical care (not to mention the clothing reimbursement every couple years or however that works now) to be unappealing.

1Government-provided, taxpayer-funded but free to consumer at the time the benefit is received. You know what I mean.

[–] spaduf 2 points 9 months ago

The bureaucracy of the military is not at all representative of what would be necessary to ensure people's basic needs are met.