We need to cut the military, tell them to do better with what they have or else.
This is a popular opinion in China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
UsernameHere
joined 7 months ago
I’m exhausted with you dude. You argue vaguely and demand I take a position, then do a line by line breakdown, repeating cyclical arguments about money and elections with zero citations of your own.
I haven’t made any claims that aren’t inherently true.
They’ve HAD power since Citizens United. The reality is that though bills are introduced and filibustered (cynically flip-flopping on filibuster rules when in/out of power) they don’t make finance reform a campaign issue. They’ve had chances at alternate voting structures - and they’ve proven via bad faith messaging that they (correctly) view it as a threat to their duopoly hegemony.
Who is they? Given the context of our discussion I assume you’re referring to democrats. But your first link shows that Democrats voted for the bill to end dark money and republicans voted to block it with a dead even 49 to 49 vote. Even Joe Biden endorsed the bill to end dark money.
Filibustering is a double edge sword. It is bad when you are trying to pass legislation but good when you are trying to block legislation. Even Bernie uses filibustering. So of course there will be flip flopping depending on the situation. Ending filibustering would allow Trump to pass a lot more legislation. That’s not a conspiracy it’s called foresight.
You’re 3rd link makes it pretty clear the Democratic Party was only opposed to that bill because it would allow non-democrats to choose primary candidates. So with enough bad actors, Trump or a GOP member could be elected as the democratic candidate and there would be no 2nd party then. That bill was obviously made in bad faith. Maybe you didn’t read your own link?
The party tried to gaslight voters about the economy, whilst everyone watched their wages freeze amid price increases. New jobs and record S&P growth is a press pool talking point, but a loser in the election.
They didn’t gaslight anyone. Wages consistently grew throughout the last 4 years. Why lie about that? When Biden took office there were supply chain gaps from Trump not handling Covid. Biden worked to fix them and corporations used them as an excuse to price gouge. Democrats supported unions which raised wages. Corporations increased price gouging to cancel it out. You’re shilling for corporate price gougers by scapegoating the democrats that increased wages when you ignore the fact that those wage increases were cancelled out by more corporate price gouging. Or flat out lie and claim the wage increases never happened.
Trump’s own shit record in 2016-2020 should have featured much more prominently, alongside a presentation of a new alternative to the changed political and economic landscape.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Liz Cheney is not that.
What does Liz Cheney have to do with the economy? Or are you just repeating the leftist talking point that Liz Cheney hurt Harris’ election. There is no polling or any evidence to support that talking point. It is an obvious attempt to convince democrats to not work with republicans and decrease their chances of winning elections and passing legislation. Never Trumpers can vote too. Why throw away their votes? Because bad faith actors want democrats to throw away votes.
“Tax credits for small businesses” is not that.
Harris campaigned on much more than that and as we are about to see when Trump takes office, all the bad faith complaints you are making towards democrats will be worse under Trump. But you only have complaints for democrats which proves you don’t really care about the things you are complaining about. It’s all in bad faith.
Ginsburg’s replacement should have been a huge battle, after Reid kept the filibuster and set himself up. Barrett’s rubber stamp approval should have equally been a bigger fight, not protest walking out of the Judiciary Committee before a vote while the Republicans still have quorum majority.
What does this even mean? Do you think Supreme Court justices are elected via wrestling matches? It’s a vote. Before the vote even happens they know if they have enough votes to win or not. That shouldn’t need to be explained. If republicans have the majority of votes they choose the next Supreme Court Justice. Democrats need more seats to choose the justices which means winning more elections. Which they are less likely to do with people like yourself spreading misinformation about them. So again it is clear you are arguing in bad faith.
Abortion should have been codified into law numerous times in the last 50 years when Dems held a majority - baseline protections are popular, and the Republicans are feeling some of that backlash right now for their fawning to religious fundamentalism.
This is a single voter issue, which means that if dems codify it into law they lose votes from anti-choice voters that would otherwise vote dem. As we saw with recent elections, republicans won after taking away abortion rights. They arent “feeling some of that backlash” at all. Again, your suggestion would result in less votes and more losses, empowering fascism even more but maybe that’s the goal of your bad faith arguments.
If this truly is the fight against fascism, why aren’t they fighting on every aspect and angle they can? The MAGAs have an inverse apocalyptic tone and fight dirty, on and off Capitol Hill.
Because fighting dirty leads to more dirty fighting by normalizing it. Trumps dirty politics lost him the 2020 election. The only reason dems barely lost the 2024 election is because of the high inflation during Bidens term and bad faith actors like yourself spreading misinformation about democrats.
Fundamentally disagree. Edit for typos or reword an existing sentence clarity, yes. Change the substance of a comment and not declare it, no. I left in my slip of house/branch because it was a genuine mistake. You’re playing point scoring and trying to twist that as me wriggling out of an error.
What I added changed the argument in no way whatsoever. I was upfront about the changes. I don’t know why you are clutching your pearls about it.
Like I said, the snippy response was the comment as it stood when I responded. You went back and changed it, and fortunately for you there’s no log history, just the ‘edited’ tag.
Again, what I added changed nothing. You seem to be doubling down after making a fool of yourself.
I’d rather we not play the loosing game of money = speech. You cannot outflank the right on immigration via border ‘crackdowns’ just as we average voters cannot outspend the donor class. Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Money. Because otherwise it’s the government of the highest bidder; Elon and crew just bought themselves seats at the table. Are you seriously arguing for autocratic oligopoly???
To “ Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Money” we have to win enough elections to do that. You can’t change shit with the GOP in office. Why does that need to be explained to you? You can’t possibly be arguing in good faith if I have to tell you that…
Citizens united is already in place. To undo it we have to win elections with it in place. Again that shouldn’t need to be explained.
No, they’ve had some very public infighting between the ‘old guard’ Republicans and the new MAGAs turning over the applecart. Dems rolled over on trans issues (like the OOP) military spending, curtailing Israel in Palestine, Supreme Court reform, deficit limits, etc etc
Yeah that’s how a thin majority works. There are always a few people that vote against their party for both democrats and republicans. If democrats spent less on campaigning it could’ve been worse. Republicans could have a super majority and really do damage. But you’re too short sighted to see that.
Excuse me if I’m not excited about the ‘resistance’ coming from DC given their track record the last time Trump was in office, when he didn’t have unified government.
What is this vague statement supposed to mean. What track record?
Peeling off a few house seats should not be the victory lap you’re trying to spin this as, when the party shit on voters by gaslighting them about reality and got destroyed for it.
Wtf are you babbling about? How did they “shit on voters by gaslighting them about reality”? How did they “get destroyed”? You sound like you repeating things you’ve heard without understanding them enough to articulate what they mean.
The leadership has failed, and they are still clutching onto power whilst kicking out the ladder beneath them.
Again, you aren’t making any sense. Democrats lost 1 election. It was a big one because of Trump and his fascist plans. But Biden inherited a weak economy and a pandemic. Voters have a short memory so we knew going it to it the odds were against democrats. Republicans were projected to win just based on history. You’re having a meltdown because democrats didn’t win when the odds were against them and suggesting they should’ve put in less effort by spending less.
- Biden “I’m considering expanding the court” does nothing.
He can’t do it without enough votes in senate. Again you’re showing you don’t know what you’re talking about by blaming democrats for not doing something that isn’t possible.
Dems rolling over on approving Barrett after Ginsburg.
Republicans controlled senate at this time. Again you’re showing you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mitch played realpolitik and blocked Garland with a much longer time before the election, but while Dems complained they still played ball.
You admit Mitch blocked while in the same breath blaming democrats for Mitch’s actions. There is no way you are arguing in good faith. This has to be trolling.
There were multiple other plays aside from confirmation hearing that were not explored.
Yeah so many other plays that you can’t mention because they don’t exist. If there were other viable options democrats would’ve tried them because democrats want that seat in the SC. Or are you pushing some conspiracy theory that democrats wanted republicans to get that seat in the SC? If so, put down the koolaid.
Ahh yes anyone who disagree must clearly be a disguised simp for billionaires. No possible way they might want a robust press freed from billionaire owners by enforcing anti-trust or walling off journalism from the profit motive that degrades public trust. Yessir you got me.
You’re the one blaming democrats for losing the favor of billionaire media owners by trying to tax them…
That’s what I saw in my inbox, and that’s the comment I replied to. Maybe don’t go off half baked if you want to avoid this scenario? Put the whole thought down or add more context from the beginning.
You expect everyone on lemmy to stop using the edit button just to cater to you? This isn’t an editorial or an essay. There’s no problem with going back and adding to a comment. Maybe don’t lie about people changing their posts after you respond just because you can’t be bothered to read more than your inbox.
I’m beginning to perceive this as low effort trolling/point scoring without an argument behind it. I cited a reference and explained the mental slip meaning houses (Senate, House, Presidency, and Supreme Court) and the parallel answer of fourth branch is right there - you’re being very obtuse or didn’t read the link
I was trying to get you to just state your argument in one place because I can’t see more than one comment while replying and your statement was changing because of your “mental slip”.
So what if Democrats spent a billion to stop fascism. What price do you put on stopping fascism? Due to inflation the cost of everything has gone up. Every year campaign spending is more than the previous year. Trump has foreign bot farms, billionaires that don’t want to be taxed by democrats and the republican propaganda machine campaigning for him for free. As long as this is true, democrats will have to spend more campaigning.
Senate only lost 4 seats same as it was 2019-2021. There have been much bigger swings in the past and it goes back and forth pretty consistently. This was the predicted outcome just based on history.
Democrats gained seats in the house this election and even though they didn’t get a majority, republicans were already struggling to get anything passed in the house before they lost seats this election. So democrats made it even harder for republicans with their campaign.
The Supreme Court wasn’t lost to republicans as a result of the democrats campaign. It was lost because of the timing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death so either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you are intentionally lying about democrats losing the Supreme Court as a result of their campaign.
The only reason democrats lost the “fourth branch” is because news media/press is owned by billionaires and democrats campaigned on increasing corporate taxes, taxing billionaires and capital gains tax. All of which the wealthy class were fighting the entire time. Maybe you feel democrats should win over the “fourth branch” by giving billionaires more tax cuts like the republicans did.
So to summarize:
Senate-traded 4 seats the expected outcome based on history.
House of reps-net gain in seats
Supreme Court-has nothing to do with the 2024 campaign
“Fourth branch”-winning this means giving more tax cuts to the rich. Why would you want that?
You’re shitting on the only alternative to Trump. While claiming that rallying around the only alternative to Trump is what got Trump elected. All while claiming both sides are the same. Nothing you’re saying is based in reality.
You’re hitting all the bad faith talking points lock and step.
I would have thought after the second Trump win the "lesser evil hurr-durr" strategy would be reconsidered.
Democrats didn’t campaign on “lesser evil” this is a narrative being pushed on lemmy a lot but in reality it doesn’t hold true. Democrats campaigned on fighting climate change, taxing the wealthy, marijuana legalization, student debt relief, healthcare revisions, addressing income inequality, workers rights. And that’s just off the top of my head.
You’re criticizing “US liberalism” in a way that implies you’re a leftists. Which is an ideology that hold little to no political positions in the US and voters went far right this election cycle. So you clearly don’t know what it takes to win elections.
And as the marginalized groups grew tired of this, they are now fiercely attacked, often in openly racist ways by the same people who claimed to want to prevent Trump for his racism and bigotry.
You speak on behalf of all marginalized groups now? That’s pretty convenient for your narrative.
No I posted this:
What 4 branches are you referring to?
Then added this immediately after hitting post/ before you posted:
Also, republicans won the majority of voters by constantly referring to democrats as being pro-lgbtq. To turn around and criticize the democrats for that is pretty shitty
I didn’t edit anything after your response only before. So it seems you are lying about that to make it look like I’m ninja editing my post. That says something about you.
You said this:
if I’m not permitted to post-mortem the DNC after a pathetic showing where they burned a billion dollars, with a B, and still lost all three (four even) branches of government
I asked which three (four even) branches of government are you referring to that were lost after “they burned a billion dollars” to stop fascism?
You responded with a wiki link about “Fourth branch of government” which doesn’t answer the question.
I like the speed downvote within under a minute, and nitpicking whilst ignoring the substance of my comment, top tier wit on display
Did you forget to call timeout? Your comment had no substance to ignore. You’re making a lot of unfounded claims about what you think the entire population wants based on your feelings.
Edit: Changing your post to add more substance after being called out is weak af, get better rhetoric skills.
Don’t be dramatic. As soon as I posted I went back and added better wording. You’re acting like I changed something after you replied.
Saving for posterity bc you wolnt:
What 4 branches are you referring to?
Ya you never answered my question. What 4 branches are you referring to?
You claimed republicans now have an overwhelming majority and I pointed out they have about the same numbers as democrats did before the election. A slim majority. The numbers support that statement. Republicans have “rinos” also just like we have Sinema and Manchin. So that argument goes both ways.
Republicans lost seats in the house from the 2024 election. And they were already struggling to get anything passed before that happened.
Even if all this wasn’t true, your idea of blowing up the Democratic Party sounds like fantasy. What are you even suggesting?
What 4 branches are you referring to?
Also, republicans won the majority of voters by constantly referring to democrats as being pro-lgbtq. To turn around and criticize the democrats for that is pretty shitty
Before the 2024 election senate seats were 51 democrats 49 republicans. Now it is 47 democrats, 53 republicans. Only 2 more seats than democrats had before the election.
So yes that is true and you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
For house of reps: in 2023 democrats had 213, republicans has 222. After the elections: democrats 215, republicans 220.
So democrats gained seats in the house and again you don’t know what you’re talking about but you don’t let that stop you.
Right now republicans have about the same majority that democrats had in the last two years. Just enough to be called a majority but not enough to easily pass anything. For you to show that you don’t understand that says a lot.
view more: next ›
Filibustering is a double edge sword. It is bad when you are trying to pass legislation but good when you are trying to block legislation. Even Bernie uses filibustering. So of course there will be flip flopping depending on the situation. Ending filibustering would allow Trump to pass a lot more legislation. That’s not a conspiracy it’s called foresight.
Filibustering can be ended using cloture with 60 votes. So apparently you consider voting “anti-democratic”.
I read it, comprehended it, explained it to you, then you posted a link supporting my argument. You should read your own sources sometime:
Another bad faith argument. I pointed out that democrats raised wages and called out price gouging. Which is literally everything they can do. You show that you understand wages went up and that you understand corporate price gouging was responsible for canceling out those wage increases, then in the same breath you scape goat democrats for the actions of corporate price gougers. Bad. Faith.
You have nothing to say because your comments can’t get any more ridiculous than they have already been.
Sorry to break your stereotype of me but I would love for our government to move further left. But I live in reality so I know that for that to happen, voters need to move further left first and as we’ve seen with the 2024 election, voters moved to the right.
Comfort has nothing to do with it. In order to win elections we have to appeal to more than the left. In order to pass legislation and fix things we have to work with more than just the left. That’s reality.
Turning our backs on democrats and scapegoating them for the actions of Trump, the GOP and corporations, weakens their chances of winning elections and passing legislation that is in our best interest.
I like how you claim dems are losing traditionally reliable voting blocs by using an article that says the opposite.
Trump swung the republicans to conspiracies and hate that ostracized a lot of republicans. Democrats reacted by trying to earn those votes to prevent fascism from winning another term. The donor class already own our government. The 2024 election may have been our last chance at changing that. But too many people like yourself spread misinformation about the Democratic Party and convinced voters to fuck around. Now we have to find out.