431
Lindsey Graham Says Joy ‘Doesn’t Exist in the Real World’
(www.thedailybeast.com)
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 25 Aug 2024
431 points (96.1% liked)
Not The Onion
12428 readers
48 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I want roe v Wade and then some. It's for topics like that that I vote democrat, as it's the currently available, most progressive option (centrist as it is). Gimme an option like Bernie, AoC or full power walz and I'd vote for that. More progressive the better, but it's got to be viable. Right now that means wearing the democratic hat.
If things like roe are centrist, call me whatever you want.
If Roe's your issue, I'd be even less inclined to vote Democrat.
All they did was promise to do something about it, raise money, and then did absolutely nothing. (And if you're curious, the cost of your bodily autonomy was $80,000,000.) Meanwhile Idaho has gotten away with criminalizing it and every other conservative state will follow.
And considering they had Congress and the presidency, their inaction is indefensible.
Separately replying to unmarked edit: they did not have a supermajority, do not control state politics, and the judges bringing these things about are on lifetime appointments, seated during trump
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the ACA were both passed without a supermajority.
You don't need a supermajority to pass legislation.
Further, we should expect federal legislators to do things that are difficult. I've had it with broken promises and false excuses.
You practically do to remove federal judges, which, to the discussed topic, is necessary. Even more so to remove supreme court justices
You know what?
You're right.
I've changed my mind. Making change is simply too hard. I should expect less.
I'm not single issue because I'm not a silly goose, that was just an example.
All I know is Republicans would pour concrete on the currently shallow grave of roe.
Democrats aren't getting an A+ from me but as I said their the closest in the direction the country needs to go.
If you review WHY conservative states have been able to do that you'd understand what happened.
It's because judges were put in place during republican majorities, and they obviously rule in favor of those republican policies.
More republicans mean more republican judges means more concrete on republican ideals.
Democrats have failed on a lot, but that failure represents effort. Imperfect, flawed effort, but the alternative is whole hearted enjoyment in destroying the things I'm interested in. Like roe for example.
Edit
Reminder there are only 2 viable options.
One tries to bring forward bluer, lefter policy (relatively, not absolutely) and one seeks to being forward a Christian fascist ethnostate.
And you're telling me NOT to vote for the imperfect team blue?
I disagree. It denotes broken promises and zero effort, which is why I feel compelled to remind everyone of how crummy a president Joe Biden was, and particularly for women. Kamala doesn't even have a platform on her website. All she wants to do is repeat memes ("Joy" and "Weird"), which doesn't help anyone.
They've made hundreds of billions we don't actually have appear out of thin air overnight for other countries' wars, but if you want a living wage or bodily autonomy it means absolutely nothing to them beyond their ability to fundraise off of promising to act.
I appreciate that I'm not the only one who uses this term, though. :)
I acknowledge what broken promises look like. I contend most of them are just failures... In battle. There's no indication the promises were made in bad faith, but heads up, politics is an uncontrolled system. In many cases good intentions lead to loss. All the more reason to clear the path.
I don't excuse it, I understand it.
I'd argue forty years of regression in both social and economic liberty across multiple Democratic supermajorities is evidence to the contrary.
Sorry don't want to go ring around the Rosie with you. Much of the worst happening is thanks to judge appointments made by trump. That's my final view of it. I acknowledge yours.
Lastly I return to my other core point:
I have 2 viable options:
And you tell me not to take team blue in this specific constrained system with only 2 outcomes?
That's okay.
I understand where you're coming from. It's just that history demonstrates that your hypotheses are wrong.
Democrats say they'll act differently, but in the end, you get the same conservative outcomes, especially on Roe.
For my part, the joyful speeches matter little when I can look at their record and know that I'm getting fascism regardless.
I mean you're just applying a hyper cynical perspective on all politicians who aren't magaheads, suggesting that they act as failed corrupt bloc, one and all.
Losses happen, failure happen. Promises are broken. That's just real life.
But I don't believe democrats pursue farce as principple.
But republicans keep their promises, and I'm sure I don't like them.
Edit for organization
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm giving them credit for their record.
As clarification, when you say "democrats" your generalizing the group. I was making the point that I believe they are not all the same.