Bernie Sanders Defended Trump On Border Protection & Graham Platner On Nazi Tattoo

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,164]

3 hours ago, faysalaaa said:

Bernie did speak against how badly Trump is treating immigrants on that same podcast. The podcaster is MAGA, and he was saying Trump won because Democrats did badly with the border, so Bernie has to first admit it before criticizing what Trump is doing. But sadly twitter clips and edit it to make it seem like Bernie is in support of Trump.

Yeah, it’s more of a rhetorical strategy than anything: concede that perhaps Trump’s diagnosis that there is a problem with border crossings is correct so that you can criticize his solution. Makes it easier for people to be persuaded. 

Edited October 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

5 hours ago, Monstermilo said:

how is deporting 4 million ppl not enough for u. 

yall literally make things up 

obama deported 5 million immigrants when u combine returns and formal removals. this narrative that they just let ppl in is completely false. but neither biden or obama used the military to snatch ppl off the streets. they did it the right way - without demonizing hispanics. trumps rhetoric makes ppl think that anyone who speaks spanish or is mexican is the enemy. 

Nobody said anything about them letting people in? The border was literally in crisis mode. People packed in droves trying to get to the border and chaos at ports of entry. Immediately gone when Trump became president.

Democrats need to just come to terms that they dropped the ball on the border and do better next time. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,164]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Big yikes.

Trump hasn't done sh*t to fix the perceived problems at the border. He's only heightened the hysteria around it to feed off the paranoia and hate of the American people, fed a government police to abuse immigrants and racial minorities while violating the rights of citizens, and erected detention camps to house ICE's kidnapped victims like animals.

Shame on Bernie for giving that f*cker an inch. An inch he absolutely does not deserve but surely that soundbite will be doing work. Figured he was smarter than to be a pick-me. Why the hell is he even on a MAGA podcast at all?  you cannot reach those people.

Anyway, every problem people have with "tHe BoRdEr" is such a non issue.

Crime? American citizens commit crime at several times the rate as immigrants.

Drugs? Most drugs that enter this country don't cross the Southern border.

Terrorism? Domestic terrorism kills thousands every year.

The biggest problem with the border is that people trying to cross it are criminalized and dehumanized leading to them having to sneak across and sometimes end up dead in the desert somewhere.

The US has been one of the most difficult and dangerous countries to try to enter and live in as an immigrant for decades already. The only thing Trump's done is exacerbate that problem a hundred fold.

When it comes to appearing on these types of podcasts, I think media siloing is a huge problem: many of the viewers and listeners on these podcasts never even hear from Democrats, they only hear other people talking about Democrats, so there’s no opportunity for Dems to set the record straight unless they appear on them.
 

I get the argument that many of these people may be too far gone, but I think there’s value to trying to make your case to an oppositional audience. I actually think it’s part of the reason why even Fox’s polling shows someone like Bernie, who makes appearances on their network somewhat regularly, as a politician much of its audience thinks has integrity. 

But I, of course, agree that a lot of the hysteria surrounding the border is overblown, but I also don’t think Bernie conceding that people being concerned about illegal border crossings is legitimate really gives Trump an inch when he’s conceding the premise so he can criticize Trump’s approach. I think the unfortunate truth is that once the perception of a problem takes hold, it’s very hard to tell people the problem isn’t real. Hell, even Harris ran on stricter border policy than Biden because she saw where the polling was.
 

The only legitimate argument I can see with border crossings is *maybe* strain of systems: not enough housing for everyone, not enough jobs, resources etc. but it’s also like…we already have those problems, so why not just run on fixing those? Run on bold visions of massive job creation initiatives, building huge swaths of affordable housing etc etc. But I also think many people just see the issue as a matter of principle: the border should be secure (and, unfortunately, Biden did seem to drop the ball in handling an unprecedented number of crossings in the tail end of the “COVID era”).

TL;DR: I see what Bernie is doing here and I get it, but I don’t think it’s necessary. The tide is already turning against Trump’s draconian approach and all you have to say is: “We need a border, of course, no one is saying otherwise. But we can’t be using that as a predicate to hurt people and we need to be a country of opportunity for everyone etc.”

Edited October 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,164]

15 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Nobody said anything about them letting people in? The border was literally in crisis mode. People packed in droves trying to get to the border and chaos at ports of entry. Immediately gone when Trump became president.

Democrats need to just come to terms that they dropped the ball on the border and do better next time. 

Yeah, I mean, as a basic policy position, the idea of preventing crossings shouldn’t really be controversial (but we, of course, shouldn’t be draconian about it) and what Trump is doing now is entirely separate from the concept of amping up security. 

[JoeCool 1,009]

I say if the Dems lose the governor races in NJ and Virginia in a few weeks, they should hire Bernie as a consultant.  That really don't fare well for next year.  

 

He's gone into Red states to try and have an understanding of what's up.  He's even talking to a MAGA podcaster there

 

 

[PartySick 172,545]

41 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

the idea of preventing crossings shouldn’t really be controversial

Why though?

If every issue people can name is worse with domestic citizens then why not just open the doors and create a streamlined pathway to document and eventually naturalize immigrants easily?

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

I always consider it a red flag/rightward sprint when Democrats talk about "securing the border".

To piggyback off @Ziggy (ziggyback?), the ONLY problem with immigration in this country, border included, is how sh*tty we treat immigrants.

[faysalaaa 5,336]

18 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Why though?

If every issue people can name is worse with domestic citizens then why not just open the doors and create a streamlined pathway to document and eventually naturalize immigrants easily?

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

I always consider it a red flag/rightward sprint when Democrats talk about "securing the border".

To piggyback off @Ziggy (ziggyback?), the ONLY problem with immigration in this country, border included, is how sh*tty we treat immigrants.

I philosophically or morally agree with you, but in reality, I dont think it can be done with success. Europe is a good example of that.

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,164]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Why though?

If every issue people can name is worse with domestic citizens then why not just open the doors and create a streamlined pathway to document and eventually naturalize immigrants easily?

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

I always consider it a red flag/rightward sprint when Democrats talk about "securing the border".

To piggyback off @Ziggy (ziggyback?), the ONLY problem with immigration in this country, border included, is how sh*tty we treat immigrants.

I mean I completely agree that we should make it easier for people to immigrate here legally and didn’t co-sign any of the rhetoric surrounding crime etc etc because that’s all obviously bullshit. I just think that as a matter of bureaucracy, even with an easier naturalization process, there does need to be a formal system by which people become citizens. 

Edited October 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Ziggy 14,051]

24 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Why though?

If every issue people can name is worse with domestic citizens then why not just open the doors and create a streamlined pathway to document and eventually naturalize immigrants easily?

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

I always consider it a red flag/rightward sprint when Democrats talk about "securing the border".

To piggyback off @Ziggy (ziggyback?), the ONLY problem with immigration in this country, border included, is how sh*tty we treat immigrants.

I think it’s tricky bc the idea of a clear and defined border is part and parcel with a quality immigration system in my mind, right? Like if you have a clear and simple system for naturalization and citizenship, part of that has to start with a border HOWEVER this basic fact gets lost in the rhetoric of “a strong border”, “securing the border”, etc. which recontextualizes what genuinely ought to be a very boring bureaucratic administrative process into an grand invasion by rogue and malicious agents. Democrats and republicans are both guilty of this atp but it is a fundamentally right wing perspective that does harm to the very reasonable and needed concept of *a* border. But ofc that’s all intentional to twist and inspire fear from reasonable people and make them crazy 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,164]

7 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I think it’s tricky bc the idea of a clear and defined border is part and parcel with a quality immigration system in my mind, right? Like if you have a clear and simple system for naturalization and citizenship, part of that has to start with a border HOWEVER this basic fact gets lost in the rhetoric of “a strong border”, “securing the border”, etc. which recontextualizes what genuinely ought to be a very boring bureaucratic administrative process into an grand invasion by rogue and malicious agents. Democrats and republicans are both guilty of this atp but it is a fundamentally right wing perspective that does harm to the very reasonable and needed concept of *a* border. But ofc that’s all intentional to twist and inspire fear from reasonable people and make them crazy 

That’s kind of what I’m saying. I don’t think there’s any harm in conceding the rhetorical framing of the importance of a “secure border” because I don’t think it is part and parcel with any of the cruelty or xenophobia of Trump’s approach, it just acknowledges, like you mentioned, that there is a legal process for entry and that that should be the channel by which people enter the country. It doesn’t necessarily follow that “border security” categorizes anyone who crosses the border unlawfully as somehow pathologically criminal (that’s the GOP/Trump’s vision). The Dems have failed to adequately frame this issue for a really long time and I think it’s probably a bit easier to win back some folks who have tipped into hysteria by acknowledging that the concern surrounding border security is, to an extent, legitimate, but that it also doesn’t require cruelty or villainizing people who cross the border unlawfully.
 

That being said, I also agree with you that it just needs to be easier for people to become American citizens. 

Edited October 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

52 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Why though?

If every issue people can name is worse with domestic citizens then why not just open the doors and create a streamlined pathway to document and eventually naturalize immigrants easily?

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

I always consider it a red flag/rightward sprint when Democrats talk about "securing the border".

To piggyback off @Ziggy (ziggyback?), the ONLY problem with immigration in this country, border included, is how sh*tty we treat immigrants.

A healthy influx of immigration is beneficial to the economy of the US. 

Not a chaotic border where people are sleeping in facilities packed to the brim and border patrol agents lose control of the situation. 

We can’t go to the other extreme of the issue and pretend it isn’t an issue. 

For months I was yelling that Democrats would lose because of the border. They pretended nothing was happening for months and then came 2024 and finally something was magically done but it wasn’t enough. 

Democrats need someone like Bernie to be a consultant. 

We’re in for a long losing streak it Democrats keep burying their heads in the sand. 

[Ziggy 14,051]

1 hour ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

That’s kind of what I’m saying. I don’t think there’s any harm in conceding the rhetorical framing of the importance of a “secure border” because I don’t think it is part and parcel with any of the cruelty or xenophobia of Trump’s approach, it just acknowledges, like you mentioned, that there is a legal process for entry and that that should be the channel by which people enter the country. It doesn’t necessarily follow that “border security” categorizes anyone who crosses the border unlawfully as somehow pathologically criminal (that’s the GOP/Trump’s vision). The Dems have failed to adequately frame this issue for a really long time and I think it’s probably a bit easier to win back some folks who have tipped into hysteria by acknowledging that the concern surrounding border security is, to an extent, legitimate, but that it also doesn’t require cruelty or villainizing people who cross the border unlawfully.
 

That being said, I also agree with you that it just needs to be easier for people to become American citizens. 

When I say conceding to that rhetorical framework it’s more that bc of the US‘s history with macho jingoistic language, I think context matters. In this case, I can tell that when you say secure you don’t mean the Huns are at our doors or something but unfortunately, employed in US politics I think it becomes that. Secure implies it once wasn’t, and that we’re not secure, which is to say in danger. Is that hysterical? Tooootally but unfortunate truth is American politics is pure hysteria atp. Truth be told, idk how to bring us back to some semblance of reasonability and critical thinking in politics bc that question goes so much broader than political messaging and “open the schools” feels almost flaccid atp lmao

[JoeCool 1,009]

59 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

A healthy influx of immigration is beneficial to the economy of the US. 

Not a chaotic border where people are sleeping in facilities packed to the brim and border patrol agents lose control of the situation. 

We can’t go to the other extreme of the issue and pretend it isn’t an issue. 

For months I was yelling that Democrats would lose because of the border. They pretended nothing was happening for months and then came 2024 and finally something was magically done but it wasn’t enough. 

Democrats need someone like Bernie to be a consultant. 

We’re in for a long losing streak it Democrats keep burying their heads in the sand. 

Agree 💯 about Bernie.

 

He kept saying during the last administration to give more respect to the working class.  I mean the cost of everything went up all over the world after Covid…. so I thought that was silly to blame Biden.

 

That being said that administration really didn’t seem to acknowledge the feelings of people economically struggling as well I thought.  There seemed to be how well the economy was.  That really turned a lot of people off.

 

Bernie seems to get all this 

[thedirtymonster 788]

Never forget that Bernie is the reason we have a Trump Presidency in the first place. Bernie's handling of the 2016 primary was abysmal and self-centered. The voter margins in WI, MI, and PA between Clinton and Trump were exponentially lower than the number of Sanders to Trump voters...

...Sanders supporters wanted "Bernie or Bust"....Well, Bernie Bros, this is "Bust". Thanks.

[Bronco 25,131]

2 hours ago, PartySick said:

I never, ever understood the point of literally gatekeeping living in another country. If you wanna move somewhere, it should be as simple as telling the appropriate government officials who you are, paying taxes, and that's it.

Yeah this approach can only work in 2 situations. 

Every nation converts to libertarianism where nothing except the absolute minimum services are run by the state. Every nation converts to communism where literally everything is run by a central authority. 

Because migration massively depends on economic push and pull factors. In the current world, it causes major issues for both the country they emigrate from and the country they immigrate to.

For the departing country, its a lose of workforce and this further exacerbates any economic struggles had.

For the recieving country, it creates an oversupply of workforce which drives down wages and standards and as we see in Canada, the US and Europe it can outstrip supply in the housing market and cause supply issues in public services. And as a result of wage depression, less taxation revenue exists and the gov ends up in a position where its unable to invest required funds to fix supply issues.