331
Happy 420?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
331 points (70.4% liked)
Political Memes
5511 readers
740 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Honestly I kind of like that the states are going back to having radically different systems. That was the way it was supposed to be -- like if you think weed should be legal, or illegal, then try it out, and everyone can watch it in practice and see how it works.
I don't like that it's so polarized to only two big centers of gravity and one of them is Naziism but the idea of it being a variety seems like more of the idea of what the US was supposed to be.
States rights: Republicans get what they want and Democrats don't have to fight for anything nationwide.
? I am confuse
States' rights in this particular case led to marijuana legalization a bunch of places which was pretty far from what the Republicans wanted
And a bunch of Democrats have been fighting for full federal legalization for a few years now. I'm aware there's a mythology that it's every Democrat's fault that 99% of Republicans voted in lock-step against it, which meant that little slivers of Democratic opposition were able to defeat it, but I'm not convinced by that logic
I'm aware that some Republicans use "states' rights" as a fig leaf for their awful policies but how on Earth are you trying to apply it in that way to this particular issue
That's because you didn't read the single sentence I wrote.
I said nationwide. You responded with state level policy.
Sure they have.
Because Democrats are content to let Republicans curtail rights for good people in red states, as long as they don't have to worry in blue states.
Yes, I'm aware of the narrative. I'm saying it doesn't match reality (in this case -- as a general statement about the Democrats of the Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton brand, I fully agree with it + how it's responsible for a lot of the lack of support for Democrats from the people who've been getting screwed).
I don't really know how to lay out my evidence for my statement other than what I've already done... if you're just planning on repeating the narrative back at me, IDK what to tell you.
All you did was divert from national policy to state policy and say that Democrats are totally working on it on the national level without anything to back it up.
"We'll look into it" isn't doing shit.
Dude, why is everything a big fuckin argument with you. Here's what I said:
That's my opinion on the federal level. There are little breadcrumbs of things in there like "the full legalization bill that Schumer was pushing" that you can look up if you want to learn more about the facts behind it. You can form your own opinions, and I'm fine with that.
If you're not interested in learning, and just interested in us shouting "YES IT IS" "NO IT ISN'T" "YES IT IS" at each other, I'll pass.
(Actually - if you want to learn about the different legalization / decriminalization bills, and what the differences between them were / how they each fared and which ones if any Biden actually supported / things like that, and then tell me, then that'd be great, because I started reading but it was complex and I didn't completely sort it out. But if it's all going to be colored by this axiom you seem to operate under that everything Biden does is automatically a betrayal and there's no need to learn anything more then I am not interested.)
I think what my attitude boils down to is that the Democratic Party has fundamentally earned my distrust, and that has only worsened since Biden took office.
After Biden didn't fire the parliamentarian in order to get the minimum wage hike passed, I cannot trust that his hands are tied when his supporters say they are. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats tie their own hands. When it's something that centrist Democrats want to do, his hands are utterly free.
You are taking Democrats at their word when they say they are powerless. I don't do that.
Why, what happened with the minimum wage hike? Why do you say that firing the parliamentarian would have led to it passing?
Did you miss the part up above where I specifically said that I agree with your assessment, as applied to most of the Democrats (the Nancy Pelosi brand)?
The parliamentarian could have been replaced with one that would have accepted that the minimum wage could be raised via reconciliation.
I didn't miss the bit where you acted like Biden has done all he can do about cannabis.
Sorry, I am done with this conversation. You can scroll back up and see multiple times where I say it seems to me that criticism of Biden / Democrats on aspects of this issue seems legit (or possibly legit) to me. If you are so eager to argue that you're just going to tell me I "acted like" I believe something I'm saying the opposite of, just so you can keep on having an argument about it, I am even less interested in that than I was uninterested before.
This is you acting like Biden has done everything he can, like I said. You keep reinforcing my decision to never expect honesty from you.
Bro who fuckin hurt you and made you expect that people go on the internet and just lie about what they believe as a fakeout to trick other people on the internet
In the very next sentence, after I quoted myself saying that from some time ago, I said:
I am not lying. I am not maliciously misrepresenting what I believe. I am not deliberately trying to engage in a conversation from a point of view other than the one I actually hold. I 100% honestly do not know why you think a person would do that, or how common it is on the internet, but it is not what I am doing for any reason whatsoever.
I don't see the point of talking if you're going to tell me what I believe, and then why the imaginary viewpoint you've assigned to me is wrong. I don't need to be involved for that process to take place.
Decades of being lied to by my own party followed by years of being called everything from a fascist to a tankie for daring to be less than enthusiastic about it.