224
We could have protected trans people's rights at the national level, but it would have required getting rid of the filibuster.
"But the GOP might use it against us!" say Dems while the GOP actively uses it against the Dems making any kind of positive change.
If they would ditch it then they can accomplish something so that people will vote for them and then they only need the Presidency, Senate, or House to be able to accomplish the same thing as the filibuster. Keeping the filibuster when the GOPs entire platform is obstruction is just giving them more options to obstruct.
“But the GOP might use it against us!” say Dems while the GOP actively uses it against the Dems making any kind of positive change.
Historically, just for example, Biden has voted against LGBTQ rights. he flipped in 2019- supposedly- because of his presidential campaign. In the Senate, he consistently voted against gay marriage. Why any one things the nominal leader of the DNC would suddenly start caring about trans rights when he never cared about gay rights.... is quite beyond me.
Same goes for Abortion.
Same goes for Climate change.
same goes for basically anything that is a progressive concern of the 40 year old "young voters"
Didn't Biden change his position on gay marriage during the Obama administration? I'm totally fine if someone wants to change their position for the better. That shouldn't be something we look down on.
He might give lip service; and I may be a bit off on the timing, but as late as the mid-90's, he was voting against gay marriage.
The point I'm trying to make though, is that there were tools to win and they're not talking them. Filibuster. Packing the supreme court. and it's not just LGBTQ issues that are on the chopping block here... it's, basically, everything. We're facing a constitutional crisis because Biden refused to act... because he's not got with the times and is still playing 'good ol boy' horsetrading politics against a team that's determined to lie, cheat, and steal for every last scrap of power.
The mid 90's was thirty years ago. That's plenty of time to have a change of heart.
yeah, I recognize that. Abortion was in 2019, though. But I doubt very much he has had a change of heart, so much as, simply being, you know, a politician whose got somebody explaining where things are. Did you believe him when he said he had 'the epiphany' as a senior in highschool?
This is pretty true. It's not because Biden is a bad person or out of touch, he comes from a very long ago generation that carries far different values than people who are younger.
he comes from a very long ago generation that carries far different values than people who are younger.
is that kind of the definition of out of touch, though? The world has changed around him. Just some quick for examples. the World Wide Web wasn't first proposed as such until 1990, by Burners-Lee. Over half his life predates the modern internet as we know it. Friendster was in 2001, myspace in '03, facebook in '04. Social media as we understand the term has only existed for the last quarter of his life.
and lets not forget, that he's been a politician for longer than millennials have been alive. He's a very large part of how we came to be here. I will say this, he's far less out of touch than Trump, or somebody like Bitch McConnel; they're still stuck in that period of time were Fascism was "cool"... (well, for assholes.)
is that kind of the definition of out of touch, though?
Sure, if he still held the beliefs, but as you've pointed out he has come around on a lot of these things, making him not out of touch (in context).
I don't know how old you are, but back in the 90s only a small percentage supported things like gay marriage. I remember in college becoming convinced that it should be an equal right for all, and white often getting pushback from liberals.
He was basically "in touch" with the dominant opinion back then, and is now.
The Clintons were against gay marriage too IIRC. Those generations took longer to change their position on the issue. And of course many Republicans never did change their position.
While true, that doesn't really have anything to do with the filibuster.
it does have to do why they're reluctant to break it, though, for any progressive cause.
Or any cause they expect us to believe they actually support.
they support the military industrial complex. Which is why Biden was so willing to expedite a certain genocidal maniac buying more bombs.
they support the military industrial complex.
They sure do. They don't run on that because it's unpopular. Democrats run on shit they never have any intention of implementing and then get in their own way to prevent it from happening.
Probably would not have even required getting rid of it. Go back to the days when people had to actively filibuster and I'm sure it would have been passed.
Dems are so infuriatingly bad at politics, it’s almost incomprehensible if not intentional.
Watch, they will get rid of the filibuster, but they’ll wait to do it until the end of this year, handing the repugs everything in the process.
Specifically:
The new law bans gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapies, and restricts mental health care for transgender individuals under 18. The measure also bans transgender girls and women from girls and women’s sports teams at both the K-12 and collegiate level.
Pretty sure his veto was just performative as he knew it would be overridden.
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
224 points (97.9% liked)
News
23296 readers
1123 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS