589
submitted 6 months ago by jhymesba@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

While rebutting another post here on Lemmy, I ran into this. This says exactly what I want to say.

I am not a friend of Biden's Administration. I think they drug their feet over a variety of things ranging from holding Trump and his goons accountable for January 6th through rulemaking on issues like OTC Birth Control and abortion rights, and yes, I think he's too quick to please big business. But then I remember what the alternative is, and ... well, disappointed in Biden or not, I'm voting for him. Because my wife is a Black bisexual goth woman, four strikes under Team Pepe's tent. And I have my own strikes for marrying her as a White dude, and respecting her right to not have kids since she doesn't want them is another strike against me. And I care about my Non-Christian, Gay, Transgender, and Minority friends, and will never willingly subject them to Team Pepe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 27 points 6 months ago

Democrats need to pull themselves together and figure out what people actually need and want. The bogeyman isn't a sustainable thing.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 6 months ago

Exactly.

Imagine if Coca-Cola tried to shame or guilt people into buying Coca-Cola.

How would that work out.

The guilt tripping and shaming is going to backfire.

To win, you have to inspire people to actually want to vote for you.

Otherwise, they just might not even bother showing up.

[-] capital@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Imagine if Coca-Cola tried to shame or guilt people into buying Coca-Cola.

Now imagine there are only 2 possible choices and Pepsi is going to further reduce the control the women in your life have over their own bodies, and other fucked up shit.

[-] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

Oh wow you're doing the thing from the comment you're replying to 🫡

[-] capital@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

It was a shit analogy given the vast options for soda and the whole 2 options we have for president. Grow up.

[-] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago
[-] Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Problem is they know exactly what the people want (socialized healthcare, corporations to be held accountable for their actions, to break up monopolies, affordable housing, seriously address climate change, safe food and water, not supporting genocide) only problem is vested interests don't want that. So the Dems need to figure out how to balance those two things by appeasing the powerful interest and paying lip service to the voters.

So the Dems need to figure out how to balance those two things by appeasing the powerful interest and paying lip service to the voters.

I mean, that's what they're doing now, right? "Oh, we all want to do these things, but the big mean republicans won't let us do them, we're just smol beans who can't help it, we couldn't possibly kill the filibuster or reform the court, it's our birthday, why do you hate us?"

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl -3 points 6 months ago

They know what we need and want they just never have had a supermajority for more than 10 minutes. Our stupid ass elections are always on the razors edge lately so we have around 3 asshole ~~Republicans pretending to be Democrats~~ Democrats in the Senate that just squash anything that would benefit us at the expense of more wealth hoarding at the top.

Listen to Democrats running and listen to Republicans running, only one of those groups rely on "hate, hate, hate, be afraid, hate, those people are different and I'll stop them!"

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

That's been the case for over a decade now and there's still a filibuster. And the court is still only 9 justices. I submit they don't want to solve it. They don't want to catch the car.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 6 months ago

I believe it's those same 3 "Democrats" that are the ones that prevented the change to the filibuster. "Totally not corrupted by his own business interests" Mancin is one I remember for sure was against it. There definitely is a contingent of Democrats that "don't want to catch the car" but I think they're the minority. With our stupidly thin margins that minority controls the agenda unfortunately :(

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

You don't need to get past the filibuster to get rid of the filibuster.

[-] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 2 points 6 months ago

No, but you do need enough votes that the people who like the status quo can be overriden. The last time that was the case was the brief period between 2008 and 2010 where there were 59 (and a 3-week window where they had 60) democrats in the Senate, and during that period McConnell's "block everything and don't give Obama any wins at all" strategy wasn't fully apparent yet, so there was no appetite to get rid of the filibuster because it hadn't yet been so widely abused. Then the 2010 midterm came in and democrats went from holding 59 seats to 51, and we've been stuck with Manchin (and later Sinema) having effective veto power on the Democrat agenda ever since.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
589 points (88.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4664 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