528
bUt BoTh SiDeS dA sAmE
(lemmy.world)
Is that a maxi pad?
all 39 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Maxi pads are known for their ability to absorb blood.
Why does it keep switching sides?
[removed by mod]
it’s not, actually, and that fact hasn’t changed since the last time you copy, pasted, and slightly realtered the same comment that got you banned on another instance (modlog)
Don't know, Trump and the Reps seem pretty chill with Putin and also with Ukraine getting destroyed. That by itself would already be a reason for me to not vote Red, apart from the long list of other things
that diagram leans pretty heavily on excluding a long list of things
True, but even the included ones are objectively wrong
Next time I need to make a glaze, I'll give you a call because that's impressively reductive.
That was the biggest nasal exhale at a comment on Lenny I’ve ever had. Thank you
Do not worry, Republicans.
Lots of India's powerful families are into Hitler.
Gotta appreciate the attempt but I don't see this surviving a SCOTUS case unless Biden hits them with "fuck you I'm doing it anyways because you said I'm immune to consequences for it"
Also, it's not a cap on the rent itself, but rather on how much it can be raised annually, seems watered down but the nordics do the same thing and it actually seems to work better than just straight rent control.
One clear downside, all rent goes up 5% every year going forward. Greedy assholes have to be greedy.
Yeah, but only 5%, that's still much preferable to the shenanigans they'd pull jacking up the rent multiple times the current rate because they consider the lost revenue of it not being an Air BnB your responsibility to make whole.
Plus if it's so predictable, it's stable and can be accounted for instead of sweating an unpredictable rate hike.
[deleted]
Yeah, you're probably right. How much is that bridge?
Source: Biden Calls for National Rent Caps on Corporate Landlords https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-16/biden-calls-for-national-rent-cap-on-large-landlords-to-stem-housing-inflation
Just like the public option campaign promise from 2020, right?
So according to you, politicians aren't allowed to express their opinions on any issue or propose any policies, unless they have the ability to foretell the result of all the upcoming elections, to know exactly who will be elected and if there will be enough support from the other 535 people needed for making laws. Got it.
So we will run on nothing and say nothing about any possible policies until we already know it has happened after the election, just to be safe. Dems will win in a landslide for sure, running on this message of we won't say.
And I assume you are upset with every politician who ever proposed something that then didn't happen. Bernie, AOC, how dare you mention single payer and then don't make it happen.
Look, breaking a campaign promise would be if a politician is running for a position, that position has the power to do something and then they don't do it. The president cannot make a public option out of thin air. It must be passed as a law. They have some influence for sure. But a broken campaign promise would be congress passed a public option, sent it to Biden's desk, and then he vetoed it. That would be a broken campaign promise.
I didn't say that politicians can't have a platform. I'm saying that we shouldn't run after the carrot on the stick every 4 god damn years. Biden used that, just as he's using rent stabilization, as a carrot on a stick to draw in progressives with no intent to act on it. Unlike Biden's attempts and limited successes on student loan forgiveness, Biden never once attempted to get a public option. He's not going to do rent stabilization either, even at his stupidly high percentage proposal.
Okay, so if the goal isn't accomplished in 4 years, politicians are no longer able to mention it again, got it.
And he can't do either of these things congress would be require for both. Neither are promises.
I don't think Sanders and AOC would be pushing so hard for Biden to stay the candidate if they didn't think he was the best way to get policies they approve of in action.
The Democratic party has been talking about public healthcare since FDR in the 1930s.
Yes and Medicare, Medicaid, the children's health insurance program (chip), the affordable care act, all passed by Democrats. And there's now three states with their own public option, all passed by Democrats.
I don't understand why you don't want politicians talking about things you support more. I wish the public option and Medicare for all were brought up even more. Talking about it less doesn't make it more likely to happen, even if you're not sure if the votes will be there to do it I the next cycle. If politicians who support Medicare for all keep doing well in elections, other politicians will see that and adopt that position too Then hey maybe enough someday will finally get elected they can get it all passed together. Politicians love passing stuff, it makes them more likely to be re elected. FDR didn't get re elected four times by doing nothing.
Talking about it more won't make it happen either. Political action will. The Republican party did not care about reproductive healthcare until after Roe was decided. Over the course of 50 years, political action on their part allowed them to succeed. The only major obstacle to public healthcare has been "Republicans don't like it". It's been 90 years, and still no luck. It took 60 years of grassroots political action from workers, starting with the founding of the Knights of Labor to the passing of the NLRA, all while organizing against an entire anti-labor government as well as anti-union bosses. Are you telling me that 1 of the 2 major parties is so incapable of political action that they can't move past "it hurts their feelings"? The Democratic party is not interested in progressive policy. They haven't been since Reagan. Don't chase their carrot.
Talking about it won't make it happen. But political action can't happen if it's not talked about! We're again at this impasse where according to your view point, no one is allowed to stake out a political position unless there's already a certainty for it to pass. How is anyone supposed to build consensus and improve support for something like that? More people from any party, whether that's democrat republican independent or a third party, supporting your position is a good thing and makes it more likely to happen. Running on a platform and popularizing it is political action. And "republicans don't like it" is generally the obstacle when you're talking about democrats passing a law yeah. Because they get elected to congress too and can vote against it (or worse the president). I'm not claiming every democrat supports it, obviously that is not the case. But getting more and more people to adopt the position is how you get to the political action. Politicians staking out a position and then people voting for the ones whose position matches your own is how this whole thing works.
You absolutely missed the point. Democrats didn't like Dobbs. That didn't stop the Republicans from getting it. The entire government, corporations, and capitalists didn't want unions to exist. That didn't stop workers from getting the NLRA. If 90 years isn't long enough for a national policy on public healthcare, then how much longer before we actually get it? I helped organize my own union across 3 states, including Texas, against a massive anti-union company. There were multiple points where I was the only active member of the organizing committee. I achieved my goal in under 3 years. We're the largest union in our sector. There is no excuse for the democrats. You don't need to like them or defend them in any way to vote for them. Don't make the mistake in thinking that this time they won't pull the carrot away.
[deleted]
Hey quick thing. My cousin is trans.
Which party won't demonize and potentially want this family member dead?
I'm gonna vote for that one.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. Biden resisted 4+ years of pressure to support changes to the Supreme Court. During the 2020 debates he said he wasn’t in favor of them. Now that his campaign is falling behind, suddenly he’s announcing he’s in favor of term limits for Supreme Court justices even though that would likely require a constitutional amendment.
Biden has a longstanding tendency to be a stubborn old man. He supported the Hyde Amendment for decades but only when he was losing the primary badly in 2020 did he suddenly announce he no longer supported it. This is another last-minute promise to try and save his campaign. Biden defended credit card companies for decades (being a Delaware senator), suddenly seeing him flip and support tenants over corporations seems a bit out of his normal routine.
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
528 points (95.7% liked)
Political Memes
5405 readers
3997 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