Did the person who made this consciously fuck up the grammar? It's so bad it's hard to believe otherwise. The idiocy required for any of those options is disgusting.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
362 points (87.7% liked)
Political Memes
5409 readers
3653 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
Would be nice if they actually wanted to do it, instead of finding procedural excuses and rotating villains so it can't be done.
Or maybe those are actually obstructions getting in the way of the majority of the party that actively pushes for that stuff consistently?
You're alleging a party leadership conspiracy that would necessarily be of a size surpassing when a conspiracy will naturally collapse and be outed by its own members trying to save their own skin.
This isn't apologism, it's a mathematically proven fact of how conspiracies and secret keeping work.
Occam's razer, a big tent coalition party is naturally going to have at least one or two contrarian assholes and as a result needs to overperform winning mere simple majorities to be able to achieve the most points of their agenda.
We could turn around and call the Squad rotating villains for some of their symbolic votes against party policy, but we don't because those votes were rendered symbolic by there being a wide enough margin for those bills to pass anyways.
bro you don't have to have a conspiracy when your interests converge. where is this majority that's pushing for actual change and not just talking about it for campaign purposes?
They didn't codify Roe vs Wade when Obama had a supermajority, they could've raised the minimum wage any time between the 90s and now, etc.
They want to keep things on the table in order to be able to run on them.
You mean that super majority that lasted only long enough to get the Affordable Care Act done and even then only after like ten Joe Manchins had to be appeased first?
The dems have had all three branches for maybe ten percent of all that time since the 90s and even then only barely.
This would not be a problem if y'all spent half the energy turning out that you do complaining about what happened because everyone else did.
You mean that super majority that lasted only long enough to get the Affordable Care Act done and even then only after like ten Joe Manchins had to be appeased first?
You say that as if they can't work on more than one piece of legislation at a time. They have aides and staffers! They have the manpower to do two things at once!
You say that as if they can’t work on more than one piece of legislation at a time.
Thanks for affirming you don't know how fighting for votes on controversial legislation works.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The passivity of regular folks is what allows fake grassroots interests to dominate the conversation on the Democratic side. Progressive people exist in the Democratic party, they aren't all Feinsteins. It's time to get the butts of people who are trying to enact change into seats of power, and let the ones who don't retire.
"let them retire"? Biden will never step down. Trump will never stop trying to be dictator. SCOTUS judges rule for life. Nobody with that level of power voluntarily retires. They need to be forced out of office. "let them retire" is the definition of passivity. Even if this is just about democrats, they're no less power hungry than republicans. No Democrat in a position of power would voluntarily retire unless they got caught in a big enough scandal, and even then probably not
When do you think they could have done it?
If only there had been a time in the past 15 years when the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate. If only that had ever happened.
So the period of a few short months when they had a knock-down drag-out fight in their own party over public healthcare?
load more comments
(1 replies)
The minimum wage was last raised by a Dem House, Senate, and President, all of which were arguably less progressive than the current incarnations. Why wouldn't they do it again if they had the votes?
Because then the "BOTHSIDES" narrative falls apart.
They had enough seats. There were democrats that voted against the damn thing, and I dont just mean Manchin and Sinema.
Yet somehow when 100% of Republicans voted against they are held blameless as they are expected to be fully servile to the corporate class, and only Democrats have the obligation to pass laws.
Republicans dont survive out in the open on places like here. If a post showed up by a republican trying to argue against minimum wage, it'd get obliterated with rebuttals.
Even when criticizing democrats, its only when theyre acting like republicans.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I have no power over what republicans do because I don't vote for them and never have. There is no reason for them to acknowledge me. Therefore I can scream to the high heavens about them sucking, and they won't change a thing. Democrats I've voted for before, they actually have reason to listen to what I want to happen because it can net or cost them a vote.
Ill tell you what, you go yell at republicans and see how much progress you make, and I'll continue to raise my concerns to those that have reason to listen to them.
Living in a red state it feels like screaming into a void, as unfortunately the only discernable desires from the right wing base are "please tread on me, corporations" and "please shield my kids from new ideas," with an endless supply of pundits and politicians selling that shtick.
That's because Republicans aren't people, and they aren't really pretending to be with any particular effort. Democrats are claiming to be the good guys
Even so, it'd still require 2/3, because sole Republican shill would just filibuster it.
I dunno, for me this is more about the candidate that wants to stop the world from burning vs the one that's actively wants the world to burn for profit.
The one who follows the science versus the one who lets millions of people die because it might hurt his political image to acknowledge that he is incompetent.
load more comments
(20 replies)
people should just pick themselves up by the bootstraps and work 18 hours a day to afford rent
18 hours each in three jobs
who is this is?
This is election
Sparta
Vote for that bag feels like too funny of a campaign line for the DNC to actually go through with it.
Sir, this is a Culver's
view more: next ›