You're viewing a single thread.
I agree; swing states seem to be the only ones that matter when you vote duopoly and all you care about is "winning."
I, on the other hand, prefer to have standards, so stop wasting your vote on the status quo, be it Harris or Trump, you will be rewarding genocide.
Trump hardly represents the status quo.
He represents 50% of the population. And unlike the democrats who are busy squabbling and falling to extremism the Republicans are focused and ready to take back Washington
I disagree.
Policy wise, more for the owner-class and less for the working class.
Crumbs here and there by both, but ultimately the status quo will continue.
"crumbs", such as reproductive rights?
I suggest checking out how many times Roe v. Wade could have been codified by the Democrats over the past couple of decades.
Caution: you may not like what you learn in that rabbit hole as well, though.
I don't think it's relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
So with that caveat, when was there congressional support? Enough votes in both the house and Senate? With president ready to sign?
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
hahaha, wow.
Anyway, here ya go:
@russelldobular
[Image, image to text below]
Screenshot:
History of Democrats Refusing To Codify Roe v Wade when they could have:
Jimmy Carter: Supermajority 1977-1979, Majority 79-81
Bill Clinton: Full Majority 1993-1995
Barack Obama: Supermajority for 72 days, Majority from 2009-2011. (plus independents who agreed to vote for the Freedom of Choice Act Obama promised to codify "first thing" after winning the election. But, Obama quickly said after winning, it's not his "highest legislative priority.")
Joe Biden: Full Majority 2021-2023
When Democrats say "we didn't have enough votes" and then fundraise for anti-abortion dems over pro-choice dems, they are telling you they don't support choice.
edit suggesting the edit Carter or Clinton era is appropriate comparison to the appetite for, or viability of abortion legislation today, as relates to the supreme court ruling and what should be done now is silly.
So did they have the votes or not? Looks like not.
Edit edit just having dems in seats is not a vote, automatically. To be clear, I acknowledge your points about supermajority, and move no goalposts as my original reply said "support".
Last edit: I edited several times to clarify. I understand if you are already replying and don't see em.
You can continue helping the duopoly fundraise with these culture war and identity politics talking points, but I don't like to keep my head in the sand when I already when down the rabbit holes.
Uh, alright.
I mean trying to deploy a "gotcha" on democrats as a monolith doesn't make sense when just achieving supermajority does nothing to guarantee either an appetite, or a true ability to pass a given legislation.
I agree with your message that it should be codified into law. I believe the appetite for roe law has never been higher, or more viable as legislation.
I don't know what you mean by talking points, youre the one who showed up with a poster board lol.
Further, if I'm helping the duopoly by talking about getting roe passed, then so be it. Roe isn't a "culture war" topic. It's a human dignity and bodily autonomy topic.
Tell me precisely - and realistically - how you propose to deal with the fact that FPTP, gerrymandering, and the electoral and sociological-geographic distribution of the American populace literally makes the bar higher for Democratic presidential candidates (rural (predominantly conservative) areas have a more meaningful impact on the national result in a statistically-provable sense), and moreover that voting third party increases the total votes cast while generally sapping support for the only nationally-viable not-fascist party we have on the ballot today.
No pie-in-the-sky “the people will rise up” idiocy or what have you. Give me a real, pragmatic answer that could conceivably work in THIS election, THIS November.
Which would have done fuck all as soon as a cycle came around where Republicans had control of Congress and the White House. Reversing a Supreme Court decision, OTOH, took decades of planning to line up just the right justices at just the right time.
LGBT lives and women's rights are crumbs to you.
These are culture war and identity politics, used to divide the working class again and again.
The duopoly and the owner-class will always have minorities to use as scapegoats.
So let's just ignore the people who would suffer in the immediate future to instead "focus" on the indeterminate #revolution that will totally then deal with it. In the meantime I shouldn't be bothered about the suffering of really any oppressed group and their actual lives. I see, I see. But what if I'd like for my queer folks to not be criminalized back into the closet? Not in the future after the #revolution but instead the immediate future?
If your so willing to sacrifice folks current ability to live their lives for the perceived high ground of not engaging with electoral politics then just go ahead and sacrifice yourself. Or is your immediate suffering too much of a concern?
Didya know you can both vote for Dems knowing the whole duopoly and electoral bullshit and still be a radical leftist? Crazy concept, I know. But let's not forget that while economically and foreign policy wise the Dems and Republicans are the same, they are not the same in all regards. And unless you plan on dismantling the US government in the next few months, I'd like people I care about to be a liiiiiiiittle safer than the alternative.
But hey, the current lives of oppressed groups is just crumbs to you so, empathy is probably not the best way to convey this so let's talk in terms you understand.
Queer folk are overwhelmingly leftist. Maybe you'd like to keep that potentially radicalizeable pop alive and put rather than dead or in the closet.
Or would you rather accelerate their oppression and hope the loss of rights causes a radicalization swing?
Or do you not give a shit either way cause once again, they are just crumbs to you.
I disagree with your framing.
You are bringing in talking points from the duopoly, which I am against and do not support.
Fighting for minorities has always been the role of grass-roots movements and third parties.
Bringing the working class and local communities together to push past the status quo is the long-term goal, instead of being stuck on duopoly talking points that continue to be problems decades later.
"fighting for minorities" ahem. The word you used earlier was crumbs. Don't forget that. Your trying to appear pro minority whatever but when faced with the immediate future of those folks you summed their existence and problems up with the word "crumbs". I do not believe you give a shred of a shit outside economic considerations. You got so econ brained that you lost your empathy.
Crumbs are crumbs for the working class.
That is why I have this as my banner:
Fighting for minorities is not a monopoly that the Democrats hold; similar to their support for the working class, it is all an act so as to fearmonger and fundraise.
Some learned this from the Obama failures, others from the Bernie Sanders Era failures, and some learned before and others will learn after another status quo president is elected.
Raise your standards and check out third parties so we may continue to fight against the status quo.
Imma double up my post and give you a lil bit of theory since you seem like the kinda person who enjoys that jazz. Intersectionality. Slap that into Google and start doing some reading.
I am for the working class, not the owner-class and their lackeys that help divide us with culture wars and identity politics.
It is interesting, but I still see it as jargon and a distraction for the issues that will unite the working class.
Intersectionality is a sociological analytical framework for understanding how groups' and individuals' social and political identities result in unique combinations of discrimination and privilege. Examples of these factors include gender, caste, sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, religion, disability, height, age, and weight.
If you can't get how that multitudes of oppression also intersects with capitalism then there is no saving you. You are willing to sacrifice crumbs/queer folk in the immediate term for literally no reason and no justification. You just personally don't give enough of a shit about those issues to consider them to be something in the moment worth caring about. Who cares about queer rights in the now when we should be caring about working class! You say as of queer folk and their oppression isn't homousian with the plight of the working class.
You just don't care. It's that simple and you've made that clear. You actively give 0 shits. Just crumbs to you.
I disagree with your framing and talking points.
You seem to be going back to the circle jerk of the duopoly, smearing and lying to push your moral high horse and victimhood.
I am not for sacrificing scapegoats and the like; I am for the struggles of the working class; we do that by building up grass roots movements and uniting, not by diving ourselves.
Wait, do you happen to like Lemmy.ml?
I, on the other hand, have standards
It doesn't matter to you at all that they're double standards, does it?
How?
Voting for Harris or Trump, you will be rewarding another genocide and more forever wars.
The duopoly only helps the owner-class, while it continues to pander to the working class with crumbs.
And not voting will fix this how?
I hope your sense of moral superiority is worth more to you than the lives and livelihood of some of the US and all of Palestine.
Edit: words, sentence structure
So you want us to reward genocide by voting for Trump or Harris...
Logic.
It's not about "rewarding" the politicians. They exist to implement policies. It's about choosing the policies that materially benefit the causes you care about the most. "Logic". Jfc.