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
Inflation is the prime reason cited by voters, not the electorate who registered to vote, and not the population as a whole.
Look at how Trump managed to drive turnout amongst non/low propensity voters, even at the cost of the more traditional Republican voters. Populism wielded by an autocratic demagogue is a cancer, but you don’t beat cancer with yet another neoliberal bandage atop the gaping wound caused by unchecked capitalism.
And it’s genuinely infuriating to see ostensible allies on the left bludgeon any criticism of the party as FUD - if I’m not permitted to post-mortem the DNC after a pathetic showing where they burned a billion dollars, with a B, and still lost all three (four even) branches of government, when will you accept any feedback? Are you seriously going to spend the next 2, 4, 6, etc years reinforcing a bubble devoid of criticism?
What 4 branches are you referring to?
Also, republicans won the majority of voters by constantly referring to democrats as being pro-lgbtq. To turn around and criticize the democrats for that is pretty shitty
I like the speed downvote within under a minute, and nitpicking whilst ignoring the substance of my comment, top tier wit on display
Honesty it’s a slip meaning the four houses (Senate, House, Executive, and Supreme Court) but given the way the media is fawning and exonerating Trump, the fourth branch also fits
Edit: Changing your post to add more substance after being called out is weak af, get better rhetoric skills. Saving for posterity bc you wolnt:
Did you forget to call timeout? Your comment had no substance to ignore. You’re making a lot of unfounded claims about what you think the entire population wants based on your feelings.
Don’t be dramatic. As soon as I posted I went back and added better wording. You’re acting like I changed something after you replied.
Ya you never answered my question. What 4 branches are you referring to?
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.