Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom know they're lying about trans kids.
-
Pete Buttigieg and Gavin Newsom know they're lying about trans kids.
If they'll lie about literal children and watch the wolves feast, what will they do to you?
I'm mad because they get NOTHING for this horse trading. The voter who is like "oh I was going to vote for a democrat but if only they just hated trans people just a little (but not too much) then I would be OK with it" is not a real person.
So, even if you want to be cynical and say "we must make sacrifices" all they are doing is sacrificing me and my trans friends and STILL not even winning.
"You know at least the Democrats aren't bigots" was all that was left.
-
I'm mad because they get NOTHING for this horse trading. The voter who is like "oh I was going to vote for a democrat but if only they just hated trans people just a little (but not too much) then I would be OK with it" is not a real person.
So, even if you want to be cynical and say "we must make sacrifices" all they are doing is sacrificing me and my trans friends and STILL not even winning.
"You know at least the Democrats aren't bigots" was all that was left.
@futurebird @PallasRiot I've thought Buttigieg had some good moments, and then he'd go out of his way to show how he highly values bipartisanship.
He's just fundamentally not on our side.
-
@futurebird @PallasRiot I've thought Buttigieg had some good moments, and then he'd go out of his way to show how he highly values bipartisanship.
He's just fundamentally not on our side.
I kind of question the political instincts, desire to survive and ability to learn from recent history of *any* Democrat who is still trying to do bipartisanship.
Listen.
They are just not that into you, OK?
I could bring up lucy and the football but that meme about Democrats is older than some kids who can vote now.
And bipartisanship has been blown up with no hope of repair.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
I kind of question the political instincts, desire to survive and ability to learn from recent history of *any* Democrat who is still trying to do bipartisanship.
Listen.
They are just not that into you, OK?
I could bring up lucy and the football but that meme about Democrats is older than some kids who can vote now.
And bipartisanship has been blown up with no hope of repair.
Have we forgotten that two Democrats in Minnesota were targeted for assassination and one died with her husband just a few weeks ago?
And none of the Republicans had anything kind or "bipartisan" to say in that moment. Some even made jokes.
-
I kind of question the political instincts, desire to survive and ability to learn from recent history of *any* Democrat who is still trying to do bipartisanship.
Listen.
They are just not that into you, OK?
I could bring up lucy and the football but that meme about Democrats is older than some kids who can vote now.
And bipartisanship has been blown up with no hope of repair.
Neolibs have been continually trying to make the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy work for 30 years now. And it never really works. The only way they still manage to win occasionally is when the Republicans have been especially awful recently or they have an incumbent advantage so they can laze around, change nothing, and wait for the pendulum to swing back. And it kinda sorta worked in the era of the neocons. But now that Rs have swung extreme right populist, the "middle ground" they want to try and triangulate on simply doesn't exist, because that's simply going to be fash-lite. And if someone is willing to vote fash anyway, they'll just vote ACTUAL fascists.
-
Neolibs have been continually trying to make the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy work for 30 years now. And it never really works. The only way they still manage to win occasionally is when the Republicans have been especially awful recently or they have an incumbent advantage so they can laze around, change nothing, and wait for the pendulum to swing back. And it kinda sorta worked in the era of the neocons. But now that Rs have swung extreme right populist, the "middle ground" they want to try and triangulate on simply doesn't exist, because that's simply going to be fash-lite. And if someone is willing to vote fash anyway, they'll just vote ACTUAL fascists.
@JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
This is one of a few words that I have a very deep negative reaction to hearing. I feel like it's ruined everything.
-
Neolibs have been continually trying to make the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy work for 30 years now. And it never really works. The only way they still manage to win occasionally is when the Republicans have been especially awful recently or they have an incumbent advantage so they can laze around, change nothing, and wait for the pendulum to swing back. And it kinda sorta worked in the era of the neocons. But now that Rs have swung extreme right populist, the "middle ground" they want to try and triangulate on simply doesn't exist, because that's simply going to be fash-lite. And if someone is willing to vote fash anyway, they'll just vote ACTUAL fascists.
@JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot I think we need trianglulation more like this. And it works because Democratic leaders are deliberately obtuse anyway.
-
Neolibs have been continually trying to make the Bill Clinton "triangulation" strategy work for 30 years now. And it never really works. The only way they still manage to win occasionally is when the Republicans have been especially awful recently or they have an incumbent advantage so they can laze around, change nothing, and wait for the pendulum to swing back. And it kinda sorta worked in the era of the neocons. But now that Rs have swung extreme right populist, the "middle ground" they want to try and triangulate on simply doesn't exist, because that's simply going to be fash-lite. And if someone is willing to vote fash anyway, they'll just vote ACTUAL fascists.
@JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot This is about 20 years out of date. The Democratic party since the Iraq war has consistently tried to do major left policies like Biden's original Build Back Better act, a statutory right to abortion, blocks on gerrymandering, or a public option in Obama's ACA, and been blocked by Democrats in Name only like Lieberman, Manchin, and Sinema. Manchin and Sinema eventually even dropped the pretense and switched to independent.
-
@JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot This is about 20 years out of date. The Democratic party since the Iraq war has consistently tried to do major left policies like Biden's original Build Back Better act, a statutory right to abortion, blocks on gerrymandering, or a public option in Obama's ACA, and been blocked by Democrats in Name only like Lieberman, Manchin, and Sinema. Manchin and Sinema eventually even dropped the pretense and switched to independent.
@CurtAdams @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
I agree that those are motions in the right direction, furtive ones. However then you have:
"Listen, I do not agree with Zoran on many issues, and I think we have some important conversations to have about the future of this city, but the voters have spoken and I am proud to endorse him for mayor as our Democratic nominee"
- The Thing I Did Not Hear From Cuomo and Others After The Primary.
-
@JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot This is about 20 years out of date. The Democratic party since the Iraq war has consistently tried to do major left policies like Biden's original Build Back Better act, a statutory right to abortion, blocks on gerrymandering, or a public option in Obama's ACA, and been blocked by Democrats in Name only like Lieberman, Manchin, and Sinema. Manchin and Sinema eventually even dropped the pretense and switched to independent.
If you think ACA and Build Back Better were "major left policies" I have some shocking and disturbing news for you.
-
If you think ACA and Build Back Better were "major left policies" I have some shocking and disturbing news for you.
@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Can you name a bill, anywhere, in any country, that did more to stop climate change than Build Back Better?
Do you think 20 million people getting insurance, and *everybody* insured actually getting to use their insurance when they get sick, is small? And, of course, Obama wanted even bigger, with a public option and bigger subsidies. But DINOs, especially Lieberman, stopped that.
-
@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Can you name a bill, anywhere, in any country, that did more to stop climate change than Build Back Better?
Do you think 20 million people getting insurance, and *everybody* insured actually getting to use their insurance when they get sick, is small? And, of course, Obama wanted even bigger, with a public option and bigger subsidies. But DINOs, especially Lieberman, stopped that.
Friend, I'm telling you that neither of those bills was leftist, or sufficient.
You're saying "well, they made our extraordinarily brutal and evil system slightly less brutal and evil", and that's true-ish.
Like most Democratic "compromises", they gave away the long term for very minor and transient short term wins. I can't name a bill that did more, because the US is notorious for not doing *anything*. So kudos, I guess?
-
Friend, I'm telling you that neither of those bills was leftist, or sufficient.
You're saying "well, they made our extraordinarily brutal and evil system slightly less brutal and evil", and that's true-ish.
Like most Democratic "compromises", they gave away the long term for very minor and transient short term wins. I can't name a bill that did more, because the US is notorious for not doing *anything*. So kudos, I guess?
I have literally written essays on why the ACA was, in the end, a net negative for healthcare in the country, but this will have to do for this forum:
1) The ACA made assumptions about good faith on the part of the insurance companies that have proven to be naive
2) The resultant regulatory framework looks like it was written by industry consultants, and probably was
3) So today, millions "have" health insurance, but... -
Friend, I'm telling you that neither of those bills was leftist, or sufficient.
You're saying "well, they made our extraordinarily brutal and evil system slightly less brutal and evil", and that's true-ish.
Like most Democratic "compromises", they gave away the long term for very minor and transient short term wins. I can't name a bill that did more, because the US is notorious for not doing *anything*. So kudos, I guess?
@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Can you answer the question? When, any wherre, any time, was any bill passed that did more to fight climate change than Build Back Better?
The answer is "never". It was the largest by far. If you're saying the biggest policy ever to address IMO the biggest issue in the world is too little to justify support, then your standards are unreasonable.
-
@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Can you answer the question? When, any wherre, any time, was any bill passed that did more to fight climate change than Build Back Better?
The answer is "never". It was the largest by far. If you're saying the biggest policy ever to address IMO the biggest issue in the world is too little to justify support, then your standards are unreasonable.
@CurtAdams @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
I think this question is changing the subject. John's point is Democrats have not done enough, did not use their time in power to good effect. You have highlighted some of the things that they did do which were very difficult.
But what if part of what makes it difficult is that it's not enough?
Frankly I get mixed messages from Democrats. Voters when polled think they are as corrupt as Republicans.
Why is that?
-
I have literally written essays on why the ACA was, in the end, a net negative for healthcare in the country, but this will have to do for this forum:
1) The ACA made assumptions about good faith on the part of the insurance companies that have proven to be naive
2) The resultant regulatory framework looks like it was written by industry consultants, and probably was
3) So today, millions "have" health insurance, but...@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Just the ACA Medicaid expansion alone saved 19,000 lives over 3 years. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-expansion-has-saved-at-least-19000-lives-new-research-finds. And would have saved 15,000 more if the Republicans on the Supreme court hadn't rewritten then law.
It's now been 11 years since implementation, and I think a law that was written to save about 100,000 is a very good thing. Do you disagree?
-
@CurtAdams @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
I think this question is changing the subject. John's point is Democrats have not done enough, did not use their time in power to good effect. You have highlighted some of the things that they did do which were very difficult.
But what if part of what makes it difficult is that it's not enough?
Frankly I get mixed messages from Democrats. Voters when polled think they are as corrupt as Republicans.
Why is that?
This isn't, in my view, a problem of messaging or of voters "not knowing all the good things Biden did" I did my best to push that too! No. They would just say "but what about Pelosi trading stocks?" or "why is our foreign policy like that?" or "but what will they *do* about immigration?"
Last one is interesting because it *wasn't* that they wanted harsh enforcement. Just a real change from this quasi-legal black market labor nonsense.
-
@CurtAdams @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
I think this question is changing the subject. John's point is Democrats have not done enough, did not use their time in power to good effect. You have highlighted some of the things that they did do which were very difficult.
But what if part of what makes it difficult is that it's not enough?
Frankly I get mixed messages from Democrats. Voters when polled think they are as corrupt as Republicans.
Why is that?
@futurebird @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot The public thinks the Democrats are equally corrupt because the media spent VASTLY more time talking about Hillary Clinton using email the same way every previous Secretary of State did than they did talking about the hundreds of millions in fraud Trump did - including fraudulent charity operations *during the 2016 campaign* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37547094
-
@johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @futurebird @foolishowl @PallasRiot Just the ACA Medicaid expansion alone saved 19,000 lives over 3 years. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicaid-expansion-has-saved-at-least-19000-lives-new-research-finds. And would have saved 15,000 more if the Republicans on the Supreme court hadn't rewritten then law.
It's now been 11 years since implementation, and I think a law that was written to save about 100,000 is a very good thing. Do you disagree?
I don't know if many people here are even suggesting that we wouldn't be "better off" with democrats now and in general?
My concern is that I am terrified that their lack of vision will mean that they do not win.
I don't think trying to tell people they are amazing worked well at all. Because they are not amazing. They are simply "much better than Republicans, technically" that is a hard sell.
-
@futurebird @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot The public thinks the Democrats are equally corrupt because the media spent VASTLY more time talking about Hillary Clinton using email the same way every previous Secretary of State did than they did talking about the hundreds of millions in fraud Trump did - including fraudulent charity operations *during the 2016 campaign* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37547094
@CurtAdams @johnzajac @JessTheUnstill @foolishowl @PallasRiot
People who don't care about right-wing fake scandals also think they are corrupt. I'm talking about people who always vote for democrats and don't care about the emails.
This isn't about media.
