In the face of ‘eradication’, one trans activist is preparing to fight – and she’s sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybody’s problem
In the face of ‘eradication’, one trans activist is preparing to fight – and she’s sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybody’s problem
You posted a half baked comment, then edited it after getting called out for having nothing but nitpicking. You got caught, and changed the substance of the comment from a reaction to one with an actual point after the fact - be an adult and own it; internet points have zero real world value, but rhetoric skills do matter offline.
I already answered this, dw the link isn’t a rickroll you can click though on a citation:
No I posted this:
Then added this immediately after hitting post/ before you posted:
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:
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.
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.
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:
And given recent events, it fits:
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 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?
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.
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.
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???
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
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. 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. The leadership has failed, and they are still clutching onto power whilst kicking out the ladder beneath them
We’ve always had a partisan press. What rolled backs the worst excesses of the original “America First” Hearst era yellow journalism was holding him to account for his tripe and editorializing reality - and when he broke from the entrenched corruption of Tammany Hall and became hostile to FDR. The Presidency is called the ‘bully pulpit’ for a reason, milquetoast neoliberalism is farrrr to comfortable with Fox News. I wonder why?
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.
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.
Again, what I added changed nothing. You seem to be doubling down after making a fool of yourself.
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.
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.
What is this vague statement supposed to mean. What track record?
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.
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.
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.
Republicans controlled senate at this time. Again you’re showing you don’t know what you’re talking about.
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.
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.
You’re the one blaming democrats for losing the favor of billionaire media owners by trying to tax them…
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. 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.
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. 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. Liz Cheney is not that. “Tax credits for small businesses” is not that.
I am tired of team blue constantly fundraising and vote gathering on the message of “this is the most consequential election ever” whilst categorically refusing to take all the actions available to them, and leaving tools on the table for Republican realpolitik. The Dems let them run the whole table of options like shutdowns, poison pill amendments, playing outside the chessboard, and filibusters, whilst meekly pushing back.
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. 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.
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.
I haven’t made any claims that aren’t inherently true.
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?
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.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Again with the “bad faith” projection, whilst cynically trying to sneak past falsehoods lol
You’re all over the map. Like I said, Dems tried to reform campaign finance, but got filibustered. Filibuster bad, but also filibuster good somehow? Filibuster is a tool of the minority - ie a directly undemocratic tool. It was undemocratic when Thurmond tried to hold back the hands of the clock and slow the Civil Rights act, it was undemocratic when Republicans blocked campaign finance reform, as it was undemocratic when Mitch blocked Garland.
You read it, but didn’t comprehend it. The party conflated alternative voting with anti-democratic principles. Open primaries are not a rare thing, but DNC opposition to alternative voting isn’t even though it would peel off more center/moderates who trend republican and isolate extremist voices. Crying about “$hill Stein” whilst demanding fealty and refusing to build broad coalitions (coalitions which delivered strong Democratic electoral results and unified government in the Obama years) is inherently anti-democratic.
Again, projection and parroting the party line without proof. Corporations did price gouge and make inflation pervasive and persistent, but inflationary causes are real.
Because they effectively didn’t. You can’t in one sentence recognize the role of inflation, then link to a graph championing a single dollar/hr increase while inflation was 2-9% year on year. Wages grew in raw dollars, but were outpaced by inflation. Yet here you are harping about how line went up and therefore economy strong.
I’m not even going to bother with a retort to the rest of your comment, because that’s hat genuinely bad faith argument looks like. I listed some political and extra-political activities that the Dems failed to do or take and you reduce that to “it’s not a wrestling match”.
From your comments, you’re clearly one of the moderates/liberals who are far more comfortable working with the Republican Party than daring to glance left, even as it costs the Dems traditionally reliable voting blocs who for generations came out faithfully for the Democrat party. Trump swung the Republicans to populism, the Democrats reacted by pulling toward liberal and moderate elites and middle class. Show the people (not the donor class) what a democracy that works for them could look like, and they might come back.