|
i have faith in the democrats being destroyed in 2022 and frankly it’s sickening to see contrary opinions here
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1573361187491921920 Lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
it loving rules we're screaming at them "do something!" And they're shouting right back "yeah! Do something!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 05:58
|
|
|
THS2 posted:i have faith in the democrats being destroyed in 2022 and frankly it’s sickening to see contrary opinions here Increasingly looking like we get a full recession by election day, so lol. Remember most Dems voted for Powell's reappointment
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
Also, I will bet a large sum of money that whoever the Dems run in 2024 will have completely abandoned abortion as an issue. That's why saying it is a winning issue for them is jumping the gun. It COULD be a winning issue if they actually did or were willing to do anything about it, but they're 100% going to sprint right on the issue as soon it turns out (surprise!) that they can't do anything about it after this election
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 05:59
|
|
|
didnt obama promise to codify roe v wade also couldnt that also be struck down by the supreme court anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
THS2 posted:i have faith in the democrats being destroyed in 2022 and frankly it’s sickening to see contrary opinions here
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:25
|
|
|
unfortunately, they want to lose and will make lots of money off of doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:29
|
|
|
quote:do people still care enough about roe to base who they are voting for in the midterms around it? especially people who aren't already hardcore political partisans, I think they've moved on
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Imagine if on TNG the president of the United Federation of Planets was like James Carville That would have loving owned
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 06:51
|
|
|
Close enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQGbW756GjI
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
THS2 posted:also couldnt that also be struck down by the supreme court anyway the supreme court can issue whatever ruling it wants, and has been doing so regardless of what the constitution says, because none of the other branches of government have the balls to tell them to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 11:10
|
|
|
I don't know anything about his politics or anything, so hopefully he isn't another MBS, but this guy seems pretty fuckin awesome! helping put out a brush fire in your pajamas when you're the loving king of a country... compare this guy to Charles III who didn't even know what saran wrap was
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 11:28
|
|
|
THS2 posted:i have faith in the democrats being destroyed in 2022 and frankly it’s sickening to see contrary opinions here Pelosi: retires from politics to a luxury mansion Goons: "owned lol"
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
THS2 posted:didnt obama promise to codify roe v wade A couple of the conservatives - I think Roberts and Gorsuch? - signalled they wouldn't vote against such a law. Which is why the demonrats won't pass one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
*looks at the last 50 years of Democrat held congresses* oh for sure man
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
THS2 posted:didnt obama promise to codify roe v wade yes, and then said this and promptly forgot about it forever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxiDZejZFjg
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
no one ever figure out electoralism isn't democracy in the true sense
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:*looks at the last 50 years of Democrat held congresses* I think part of this sense that the Demcrats were a more progressive party before Reagan (they weren't, they have always been a violently center-right party, at least since Truman) is that the particular clique of Clinton people who run it today weren't around back then and don't really have a good sense of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
 lmao got a fundraiser e-mail that reads like they hosed up their Booker and Warnock 'PLEASE DONATE' emails, except it's 100% intentional. Like they couldn't find any way to actually sell Booker, so instead they're just talking about the Warnock vs Walker race, with a sentence at the very end that clarifies this is to give Booker money because every seat is needed At no point does it try to make an appeal about why Booker is good or how he's like Warnock so you should support both. It's entirely written as a Warnock fundraiser to protect his seat, with enough little things they could circle to say they didn't technically lie if they ever got in trouble for it. Coolness Averted has issued a correction as of 19:50 on Sep 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 19:35
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Imagine if on TNG the president of the United Federation of Planets was like James Carville or Tipper Gore. the president in the TOS movies was Red Foreman so ideally he would show up in every series as a different forehead alien and call the regular cast dumbasses
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:
i think they're just betting that dem voters/donors, being racist, can't tell the difference between cory booker and warnock or don't know they are different people
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
the bitcoin of weed posted:i think they're just betting that dem voters/donors, being racist, can't tell the difference between cory booker and warnock or don't know they are different people It would have been funny if they just mixed up their black politician photo, but nah the entire thing was engineered based on a focus group telling them Warnock is a good product. It's written as if it were a direct appeal from Warnock about his race, complete with a subject: Georgia and 'sender' Raphael Warnock. It mentions Booker's name exactly twice in the body with 'Cory wanted me to tell you' in that screenshot and a 'Give donation to our campaigns' at the bottom. The legal disclaimers after the email stating this is a fundraiser for Cory Booker and the campaign picture at the top are the only times it actually says Booker's full name. Hell, it doesn't even mention NJ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Pelosi: retires from politics to a luxury mansion the thesis is that the dems will be destroyed, not that rich people will experience consequences
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:"He's right, it's over, if you just ignore the hundreds of people dying every day" Uh, you realize that roughly 7000-8000 people die each day in the US? Would you say that the US has a "death pandemic"??? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I think part of this sense that the Demcrats were a more progressive party before Reagan (they weren't, they have always been a violently center-right party, at least since Truman) is that the particular clique of Clinton people who run it today weren't around back then and don't really have a good sense of it imo this is broadly accurate. The northern Democrats were always Burkean conservatives before 1968, even if they didn't call themselves that, and FDR forced through the New Deal out of sheer necessity. IIRC the Dems would have happily worked with the GOP after the war to gut the New Deal and return to laissez-faire, and it was only because of Truman basically saying 'if you repeal the New Deal, I will ram a social democratic platform down your throat, and if you don't like it, I will take it to the American people and see how they feel' that they were intimidated into keeping it alive. In spite of that, they forced through poo poo like Taft-Hartley over Truman's veto, so they definitely weren't progressives back then. The closest the Dems came to progressivism afterwards was the Great Society poo poo that LBJ pushed in the 60s, but that was still a load of milquetoast half-measures that the neoliberals were happy to do away with after 1976. I guess there was a bit of a 'party shift' when the Dixiecrats jumped ship in 1968 (insofar as jettisoning a bunch of segregationists made the remaining Democrats seem more progressive in comparison), but seeing as McGovern fell flat on his arse in 1972 and Carter let in the neoliberals in 1976, that really didn't last long. basically, the Democrats have always been the Great Satan
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 07:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/sta...ingawful.com%2F
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 07:33
|
|
|
I really wonder whether they'll even bother mentioning abortion at all (outside of fundraising requests) in 2024 or after. I'm guessing no. They'll probably ramp up making GBS threads on trans people in the meantime, too, in the pursuit of that mythical "moderate" Republican.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 09:43
|
|
|
lmao whoever writes Joe Biden's tweets is damned
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 10:10
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:Captain Sheridan earned it He also fights for the users, and right now we could use a little of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
Venomous posted:I guess there was a bit of a 'party shift' when the Dixiecrats jumped ship in 1968 Lest we forget that Vietnam was broadly, and rightly, perceived as a war being waged by and for the democrats' interests in 1968. Rebranding of the democrats into anything even vaguely progressive-ish wasn't really possible until Clinton after Reagan moved things rapidly to the right and a generation had grown up without the draft and with the racists moved to the gop. Aspiring to be the party which appeals to progressives was necessary just to replace the lost racist votes but required that they now had to say one thing while doing another. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that pretending to be progressive is a fundamental part of the party in a way that's just as structural as their donor base or the complete disconnect between their interests and those of their constituents. The entire construction of the party as it exists is completely dependent on that perception which is the root cause behind all of the contradictions that we see. The republicans make ads saying you're to the left of Stalin despite you being to the right of Reagan? You can't really argue because you simultaneously need to be both to different audiences. The same with staking out clear, achievable political goals or even doing something like appointing non-insane judges to the federal court. Every action is mediated through a lens demanding they appear to be something they can't be if they want the money to continue to flow. If I were more sociologically minded I might even argue that the whole push toward identity as politics that really started in the 90s was an engineered effort to turn people from goal-oriented politics of the 60s and 70s (let's use the ERA as an example of a project that you can advocate for from either party perspective) to something that's innate and therefore benign (You're gay? You must be a democrat, then.). I don't know enough about the field to say whether that argument passes scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:If I were more sociologically minded I might even argue that the whole push toward identity as politics that really started in the 90s was an engineered effort to turn people from goal-oriented politics of the 60s and 70s (let's use the ERA as an example of a project that you can advocate for from either party perspective) to something that's innate and therefore benign (You're gay? You must be a democrat, then.). I don't know enough about the field to say whether that argument passes scrutiny. not a sociologist either, but I'd say this is true to an extent, seeing as Don't Ask Don't Tell became a thing under Clinton, as a means of saying 'now gays can become part of the military-industrial complex! You have to be closeted while you serve or else you'll be discharged immediately, but now you can be a Real American too!' anyway, as is customary with the Democrats, they didn't foresee that their Whig approach to identity politics (as with all Whig conceptions of history) would receive any sort of pushback from the Republicans, and they will be all  when the GOP inevitably rolls back LGBT+ rights like their opponents weren't, you know, a bunch of fascists(actually, that's a lie, they'll be publically and  in private, because they don't give a gently caress about oppressed peoples for any other purpose than to exploit them for the purpose of enriching capital, and if they decide that, eg. it hurts capital more than it helps them to even superficially support the queers, they will throw us under the bus in a second, just like the Democrats are going to throw pregnant women under the bus after they're destroyed in November)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
hypothetically, if the democrats aren't destroyed or are only slightly destroyed, I think the answer is to make fun of republicans for being so weird and pathetic that they could not destroy the demonkkkrats despite it being a perfect opportunity to do so
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/15...ingawful.com%2F which means...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 07:18
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:If I were more sociologically minded I might even argue that the whole push toward identity as politics that really started in the 90s was an engineered effort to turn people from goal-oriented politics of the 60s and 70s (let's use the ERA as an example of a project that you can advocate for from either party perspective) to something that's innate and therefore benign (You're gay? You must be a democrat, then.). I don't know enough about the field to say whether that argument passes scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
  we did it!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:25
|
|
|
yikes
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
capitalism = exploitation + competition
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
LastInLine posted:Lest we forget that Vietnam was broadly, and rightly, perceived as a war being waged by and for the democrats' interests in 1968. Rebranding of the democrats into anything even vaguely progressive-ish wasn't really possible until Clinton after Reagan moved things rapidly to the right and a generation had grown up without the draft and with the racists moved to the gop. Aspiring to be the party which appeals to progressives was necessary just to replace the lost racist votes but required that they now had to say one thing while doing another. I think it's a broader 20th century project to turn away from political economy. It's a peak Midcentury Modern, early 60s belief that the problem of economic scarcity has been solved, independently by like the Kennedy administration and by Soviet socialism, and the real issues are ones of culture, psychology and language. There is some truth in the cultural Marxism theory, but it was shared by the center and right as well, not exclusive to the left. Pretty much everyone had decided by 1961 that political economy was a solved, 19th century problem, and all of the boomers who went to graduate school and became academics were taught that icantfindaname has issued a correction as of 22:19 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 22:11
|
|