652
submitted 2 months ago by Zaktor@sopuli.xyz to c/politics@lemmy.world

Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.

“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”

She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

It is apathy in the sense that you are here exclusively to promote voter apathy

Nope, I'm doing no such thing. On the contrary, I encourage voters to be rightfully pissed off and hold their elected representatives accountable.

  1. The powers that be have decided it all for us

No, I'm saying DON'T LET THEM!

  1. Lack any clear or coherent call to action or plan to address the issues you discuss

Again with your insistence that you aren't allowed to voice your dissatisfaction with politicians unless you're ready to do their jobs for them if not outright replace them 🤦

Political apathy is a lack of interest or apathy towards politics. This includes voter apathy

Which is the opposite of what I'm exhibiting. Pointing out alienation ≠ not caring or telling others not to care.

I carefully picked these words with intention

Then you're even dumber than I thought.

not to come up with a slogan.

That was in reference to your repetition of "shit or get off the pot"

By looking at the trend in your posts, they all echo the same trend: Voting is ineffective

That's not what I'm saying, no. ONLY voting without holding your representatives accountable is ineffective. I consider voting the bare minimum, not the whole solution. Any comprehensive good faith reading would bring you to that conclusion.

it's possible you are simply echoing this sentiment by agreeing with other posts/users

Nah, unlike willfully obtuse apparatchiks like yourself, I'm actually capable of independent and logical thought.

political engagement is ineffective, because after all "The powers that be have already decided everything for us

You can't be this fucking obtuse 🤦. I'm saying NOT TO LET THEM, not that it's inevitable like the strawman you keep trotting out

I will give you the benefit of the doubt

Yeah, you made the lie of that clear about 4 strawman repetitions ago 🙄

that you are in fact a human person

Another typical establishment shill deflection: " everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bot" 🤦

with good intentions

Yeah. Unlike certain people who don't know what words mean, I'm arguing in good faith as always. You should try it.

But either way, you've picked up the rhetoric of disinformation campaigns and determined you agree with it and here we are.

Do you rent yourself out to cinemas? Because that's an impressive amount of projection!

You are welcome to keep expressing dissent over. and over. and over

Could have fooled me!

without any semblance of a path to redress any of these concerns

Again: it's not my job.

I am also welcome to call this out as a nihilistic outlook

Sure, there's no law about being willfully obtuse and pretending that not falling in line equals both caring. It's arrogant and annoying, but not illegal.

because the revolution hasn't come knocking at the door yet.

An enabler of the corrupt establishment like you probably hopes it never does. You'd NOT fare well in a system where critical thinking is valued higher than blind obedience.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You said incremental progress is not good enough, right?

Because that’s what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it’s the best way.

So, what’s the best way pray tell?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Comprehensive reform like Women's Suffrage, The New Deal*, The GI Bill*, the Great Society reforms, the civil rights acts of the 60s.

Fundamental systemic change happens suddenly as a result of people protesting so much that the politicians can no longer ignore their will, NOT incrementally over decades as both parties gradually drift further and further to the right.

*without the racial discrimination, of course

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Yea, so progress depends exclusively on massive acts of protest now? And none of those changes are being reversed?

Yes, those movements were instrumental in moving things forward but to rely on them exclusively is very disparaging to the mountain of work that happens at the local and grassroots level every day by people who are putting hard work towards that unsexy incremental change that you so despise. It's so minimizing to the people who depend on those policies.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"

That eternal vigilance is that incremental change you are offended by. You can protest day in and night, but without the work to keep the flame of liberty alight it's just that...empty protest. The left is so divided right now, even getting them to protest the same things is almost impossible.

I think you are a good person with good intentions -I really do. But protest without the work to keep democracy going is like hitting rocks hoping the fire stays on.

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
652 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3857 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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