this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
645 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2648 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.

“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”

She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We got the ACA in the last one, and in the most recent one two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn't go forward.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We got the ACA in the last one

Which they negotiated into a giant giveaway to insurance companies with no price controls or other ways to limit profiteering. WITHOUT any Republicans forcing them to or even voting for the bill.

two Democrat senators defected to oppose it so it couldn't go forward.

Yeah, there's always a rotating villain or two who acts as a roadblock and scapegoat. So very convenient for a party that votes for legislation that their rich owner donors want much more often than legislation that the people at large want.

Especially since the rotating villains are always heavily promoted by party leadership and paid more party funds for their campaigns than most other candidates.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The ACA, while not perfect, literally saved my life. It prohibits lifetime maximums and eliminated the idea of pre-existing conditions.

Without that, I'd be dead.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This place is full of people who want to turn an aircraft carrier on a dime. They'll never be happy with anything and it explains why their big ideas will never happen.

They turn everyone off and discourage everyone because nothing is ever good enough. It would be one thing to be happy but not satisfied but even that isn't enough.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

I know.

They have unrealistic expectations about how the world works and feel like anger, even if justified, should be enough.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

the flaws in the ACA only exist cause follow up bills to patch the holes that came up after rollout couldnt be passed due to, you guessed it, republicans.

cause republicans are against anything and everything that benefits the 99.9%

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Indeed. Everyone tries to blame Democrats for, when they have the slimmest of majorities, for not doing everything, when there are literally 49 Republican senators out there who are the ones who are truly blocking progress.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm glad it saved your life and I am aware that it was an improvement over the former status quo.

That being said, though, it's inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it's too late.

Dems had a unique opportunity to save as many lives as possible, and they negotiated themselves down to a tiny step in the right direction and then pretended that it's the best anyone could possibly do.

It's been over a decade and a half since they took that tiny step and they're still resting on their laurels and vehemently opposing anyone who suggests that improvements are needed or even possible.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good

I'm so fucking tired of that lame argument for complacency.

Incrementalism isn't good. Taking a tiny step in the right direction and then declaring victory as the other party predictably makes it worse than it originally was as both parties gradually turn further and further right isn't good.

It's throwing rare scraps to the starving masses from the banquets they throw for their owner donors, including the health insurance industry leeches that the ACA massively enriches.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Politics is about incremental progress, which is not sexy enough for you guys. If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can. All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Politics is about incremental progress

Because that's what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it's the best way.

If you want the revolution, go start it. Shit or get off the can

"If you don't like my favorite band, make better music yourself" 🙄

All this moral grandstanding is vacuous and meaningless

Yeah, expressing dissent should be for those with the power to change things themselves only. What a great idea! 🙄

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just my opinion, but this is not expressing dissent: This is nihilistic apathy. Expressing dissent typically comes with a call to action or a plan. Being politically active is not the equivalent of starting your own band and the fact that that's what you took from it is very telling. Again, if you've resigned yourself to what has been charted out by the powerful either shit or get off the can. This is just political apathy disguised as voicing dissent for edgy points.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

this is not expressing dissent: This is nihilistic apathy.

You clearly don't have any idea what either of those two words mean.

Expressing dissent typically comes with a call to action or a plan

No. It's possible and in fact a good thing to speak up when the people who are supposed to represent you aren't doing their job. Whether or not you have everything they need to do in stead ready for them to reflexively reject.

Being politically active is not the equivalent of starting your own band and the fact that that's what you took from it is very telling

I was using a simplified analogy to illustrate the folly of your "fix it or shut up about it being broken" approach to government, not making a 1:1 comparison.

Again, if you've resigned yourself to what has been charted out by the powerful

As is clear by my dissent, I have NOT meekly resigned myself to the status quo, like you seem to have m

either shit or get off the can

I can make unreasonable demands too: either learn what words mean and get a better catch phrase or shut up.

This is just political apathy disguised as voicing dissent for edgy points.

Nope. That's still not what apathy means. You might mean contrarianism. You'd still be wrong, but at least your false accusation would be logically consistent with the rest of your reductionist pro-establishment rant.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you want to argue semantics, that's fine. My point stands. It is apathy in the sense that you are here exclusively to promote voter apathy by emphasizing that:

    1. The powers that be have decided it all for us
    1. Lack any clear or coherent call to action or plan to address the issues you discuss

From google/wikipedia (emphasis mine):

Political apathy is a lack of interest or apathy towards politics. This includes voter apathy

I carefully picked these words with intention -not to come up with a slogan.

By looking at the trend in your posts, they all echo the same trend: Voting is ineffective. Now, it's possible you are simply echoing this sentiment by agreeing with other posts/users that have determined for you that political engagement is ineffective, because after all "The powers that be have already decided everything for us". I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are in fact a human person with good intentions. But either way, you've picked up the rhetoric of disinformation campaigns and determined you agree with it and here we are.

You are welcome to keep expressing dissent over. and over. and over. without any semblance of a path to redress any of these concerns but I am also welcome to call this out as a nihilistic outlook because the revolution hasn't come knocking at the door yet.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is apathy in the sense that you are here exclusively to promote voter apathy

Nope, I'm doing no such thing. On the contrary, I encourage voters to be rightfully pissed off and hold their elected representatives accountable.

  1. The powers that be have decided it all for us

No, I'm saying DON'T LET THEM!

  1. Lack any clear or coherent call to action or plan to address the issues you discuss

Again with your insistence that you aren't allowed to voice your dissatisfaction with politicians unless you're ready to do their jobs for them if not outright replace them 🤦

Political apathy is a lack of interest or apathy towards politics. This includes voter apathy

Which is the opposite of what I'm exhibiting. Pointing out alienation ≠ not caring or telling others not to care.

I carefully picked these words with intention

Then you're even dumber than I thought.

not to come up with a slogan.

That was in reference to your repetition of "shit or get off the pot"

By looking at the trend in your posts, they all echo the same trend: Voting is ineffective

That's not what I'm saying, no. ONLY voting without holding your representatives accountable is ineffective. I consider voting the bare minimum, not the whole solution. Any comprehensive good faith reading would bring you to that conclusion.

it's possible you are simply echoing this sentiment by agreeing with other posts/users

Nah, unlike willfully obtuse apparatchiks like yourself, I'm actually capable of independent and logical thought.

political engagement is ineffective, because after all "The powers that be have already decided everything for us

You can't be this fucking obtuse 🤦. I'm saying NOT TO LET THEM, not that it's inevitable like the strawman you keep trotting out

I will give you the benefit of the doubt

Yeah, you made the lie of that clear about 4 strawman repetitions ago 🙄

that you are in fact a human person

Another typical establishment shill deflection: " everyone who doesn't agree with me is a bot" 🤦

with good intentions

Yeah. Unlike certain people who don't know what words mean, I'm arguing in good faith as always. You should try it.

But either way, you've picked up the rhetoric of disinformation campaigns and determined you agree with it and here we are.

Do you rent yourself out to cinemas? Because that's an impressive amount of projection!

You are welcome to keep expressing dissent over. and over. and over

Could have fooled me!

without any semblance of a path to redress any of these concerns

Again: it's not my job.

I am also welcome to call this out as a nihilistic outlook

Sure, there's no law about being willfully obtuse and pretending that not falling in line equals both caring. It's arrogant and annoying, but not illegal.

because the revolution hasn't come knocking at the door yet.

An enabler of the corrupt establishment like you probably hopes it never does. You'd NOT fare well in a system where critical thinking is valued higher than blind obedience.

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You said incremental progress is not good enough, right?

Because that’s what the powerful have decided for you, NOT because it’s the best way.

So, what’s the best way pray tell?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Comprehensive reform like Women's Suffrage, The New Deal*, The GI Bill*, the Great Society reforms, the civil rights acts of the 60s.

Fundamental systemic change happens suddenly as a result of people protesting so much that the politicians can no longer ignore their will, NOT incrementally over decades as both parties gradually drift further and further to the right.

*without the racial discrimination, of course

[–] TheFonz@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Yea, so progress depends exclusively on massive acts of protest now? And none of those changes are being reversed?

Yes, those movements were instrumental in moving things forward but to rely on them exclusively is very disparaging to the mountain of work that happens at the local and grassroots level every day by people who are putting hard work towards that unsexy incremental change that you so despise. It's so minimizing to the people who depend on those policies.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"

That eternal vigilance is that incremental change you are offended by. You can protest day in and night, but without the work to keep the flame of liberty alight it's just that...empty protest. The left is so divided right now, even getting them to protest the same things is almost impossible.

I think you are a good person with good intentions -I really do. But protest without the work to keep democracy going is like hitting rocks hoping the fire stays on.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

That being said, though, it’s inadequacies HAVE lead to the deaths of many, perhaps thousands or even hundreds of thousands, from not being able to afford treatment before it’s too late.

Yeah, but less people died than they would have if there was no ACA.

Its terrible that people die in the country every day from healthcare issues that are taken care of by every other first world country on the planet.

but god damn, sitting here saying shit like you are screams of nothing but impotent anti-ACA troll flailing.

the ACA needs to have its holes patched, yes, but don't sit here and pretend its not saving a fuckton of lives.