|
Srice posted:hell, if biden actually brings it back then I'll happily give him credit for it Conveniently when his party controlled congress he let it expire, and now that Republicans can block it in the house he's really determined to bring it back you guys!
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
Godlessdonut posted:The Parliamentarian was a very good cover for those Dems that wanted it gone. I don't think the CTC was even the parliamentarian's doing. As a predominantly budgetary measure it would qualify for reconciliation under the Byrd rule, so it was all Manchin's doing, rotating in to backstab his party out of the blue. And of course he cannot be corralled or whipped or punished in any way lest he spitefully hand his seat over to the Republicans. Is that what you want you MAGA chud? Huh what's that? He announced his retirement, handing the seat to Republicans in 9 months anyway? Hunh. Whoopsies!!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
SixteenShells posted:What if, many years ago, the very first time it became clear that Manchin wasn't on board with the Democratic Party agenda, the Party withheld resources and forced him to run as an Independent instead of a sanctioned Dem? That way, when the time comes when they need ideological unity to accomplish their agenda, they have it? Well that sounds like some very basic things I'd expect a political party to do, and if they're not doing that, I'd have some questions about how seriously they were approaching this whole "governing the country" thing. The argument is that if they'd done it in 2021 they'd lose the senate and not be able to appoint Justice Jackson, and so it's worth it but I always felt a tension there. For one thing he might not switch parties, if the threat is effective then they win. For another, they don't need him for control now so they lose nothing by threatening his committee seats and the bribery gravy train that comes with them, yet they still don't do it. And of course that same excuse was used for every blue dog: Joe Heller, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, and they lost all those seats anyway and are about to lose Manchin's.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
atelier morgan posted:willa pointed out that lyin' leon was overly obsessed with her so leon edited every single one of his posts that ever mentioned her by name before posting 'anybody can click post history and see i never do that' Also he claimed she was obsessed with him because see a simple search shows she's mentioned his username many times and he's never addressed her at all
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
It would have been interesting to see the liberal reaction to the vaccine if Trump had won. On the one hand The Money wanted people vaccinated so they could be forced back to work, encouraged to go out and spend money, etc. On the other hand TDS. I remember the D&D covid thread had a lot of people speculating that Trump would force the CDC to release an ineffective or even dangerous vaccine and cover up all the evidence.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 04:59
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:oh, word? Yeah it was pretty funny quote:I guess the question is what authority do you trust if they tell you they have a vaccine, and it is safe and effective? We've already demonstrated that you can't trust the POTUS, and any department reporting to him is dubious. Anything out of the UK, Russia or Brazil is similarly suspect. I think that's the biggest thing that is going to leave us hosed, nobody with any authority has any credibility quote:A person can reasonably be pro-vaccine in general circumstances yet still be suspicious of a rushed vaccine encouraged by the Trump administration and its weakened regulatory state. quote:I think they are more voicing the opinion that they'd feel better about a vaccine that passed regulatory and safety hurdles in countries that didn't have a gutted regulatory system and an incestuous interplay of industry and government in its regulatory agencies. Which doesn't strike me as irrational or anti-vaxx. quote:I despise anti-vaxxers, and as a volunteer in a homeschooling community I encounter far too many of them (thankfully their kids all know it's nonsense, and some of the older ones have actually gotten vaccinations without their parents' knowledge), so I'm really struggling with my sense of unease about a rushed-for-political-purposes COVID-19 vaccine. We've had folks who are in the know posting in these threads about the potential for harm that a botched or deliberately undermined vaccine trial could hold, harm which might not even become evident for years. Will I get a vaccine if it becomes available? gently caress, probably? But I will absolutely be waiting to see if more trustworthy European agencies sign off on it, and even then I'll be tempted to wait for a few months. quote:My strategy is to try to continue living in a country that doesn't have enough of a coronavirus problem to need to rush into vaccinating, and see what happens to 200 million Americans when they switch from being lab rats for a highly dangerous and unpredictable novel virus to being lab rats for the brand new vaccine. quote:You guys are assuming that they will, we're saying that in the highly charged political climate in the US and various other places there is a much higher than usual risk that pressure will be put on industry and regulators to sign off a vaccine quickly to secure the leaders' electoral prospects. VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 13:36 on Apr 10, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
Jon Carbuncle posted:not sure I see anything here other than a healthy distrust of the government Yeah but it's not about trusting the word of the government right, because there are trials done and the data are published and we can look at that. Making the whole conversation about whether Big Pharma is trustworthy (they aren't) is what anti-vaxxers do. Not saying you're doing that, just pointing out that simply distrusting Trump/the government isn't a good reason. I mean, all those lib concerns disappeared when Biden won, even though all the research had already been done under Trump. So it seems like either the fears were based on their own political partisanship, either that or Biden retroactively made Trump's FDA trustworthy PoundSand posted:To be fair releasing inadequate protection and telling people the problem is solved so they can go back to work and die is exactly what the government did so it wasn't really an unfounded concern that it'd happen under trump, it just happened under biden instead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 14:29
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Of course they do, that's the point. I wonder if there will be any resistance at all. Is anyone going to even pretend to care about immigrants again after completely dropping the issue for four years
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
And for all that, both parties are far more cohesive and reliable in their votes than they were at any other point in history. Democratic administrations of the past had large segments of their own party in open rebellion against their legislative priorities. Including, almost especially, the most successful ones. If one was to accept that Biden and Democratic leadership are bad at keeping the party in line, FDR and LBJ were absolute dogshit losers who bumbled into every law they passed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 16:13
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:mcmagic scouring big bad twitter to find every succer's take on cornel. Wait until Weigel hears about all the stupid things his candidate has said
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
MadSparkle posted:She ruined a Dolly Parton song because she doesn’t understand nuance It's fine it's just a different story than Dolly's version. I do like Dolly's better tho
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 00:27
|
|
|
Nichael posted:wtf The elderly should be mostly shitposting, lol if you live 70 years and haven't figured out discourse is a dumb waste of time
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 00:29
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:way before that post a dnd mod reached out to me & asked for solid examples of leon gaslighting me, so I provided them, after which the mod said he took it seriously & would discuss with the other mods, after which leon was appointed as a dnd mod himself, lol. They were just confirming that he meets the job requirements
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 01:06
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4586780-senate-democrats-baffled-by-calls-for-sotomayor-to-step-aside/ It's easy to imagine why someone would want her to step down: they are racist sexist BernieBros who hate women and they want to kick her out for being Latina, not complicated
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Gore would have 100% invaded Afghanistan. I don't think he would've invaded Iraq just because he wouldn't have had the project for a new american century neo cons in his administration who had a hardon for Saddam for the previous decade. With how many senate democrats, including their 2004 candidate, voted for the war, I don't think we can say this for sure. Obama didn't have to be surrounded by neocons to be a bloodthirsty warmonger, and all the oil companies and weapons merchants who bankrolled the neocons would have happily paid those bribes to Gore's neoliberal interventionist faction instead. He may still have been pushed to invade; our oligarchs had been drooling over those oilfields for a loooong time. It's possible he would have settled for tightening up sanctions, starving, and bombing the poo poo out of them. But who knows what would happen, even if he doesn't invade, maybe he loses hard in 2004 and the neocons get in and do the same poo poo anyway VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 16:42 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
If Gore won, 25% chance it would have prevented 9/11, 75% chance Gore does 9/11 anyway as a favor to his friend Dick
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:Also, if Democrats want that overwhelming win so badly, there are a ton of very popular positions they could take that would gather them a lot of votes: stake out a position against the tax software companies, actually do something about protecting the right to choose, stop shipping weapons to genociders, student loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, stimulus checks for everyone, increasing the child tax credit (which would lift a shitload of children out of technical poverty), etc Be serious. Can't be done. No magic wand that makes laws happen when one party holds a trifecta in government. Green Lantern theory. No power ring. You have to vote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:
I don't think there are enough mindless blue voters to keep Dems strong, the issue here is that Republicans don't address material conditions either so there's no real reason for anyone to vote for them. Republicans just blame all our problems on immigrants, black people, loose women, and gays. Which is enough to get a lot of votes, but there's also just too many voters who aren't taken in by that to make the GOP a permanent majority. They could defeat the Democrats forever, easily, if they did the barest minimum to help people, which is more than the Democrats would ever do, but they won't. We saw what happened when a political party made the slightest effort to improve the material circumstances of anyone besides oligarchs for a change, it was called the New Deal and Democrats won 5 terms in a row and had an almost unbroken hold on congress for 60 years
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
spacemang_spliff posted:Does anyone really think Rubio would have sent out big beautiful checks? Most likely. He voted for it twice. He might not have said "it should be a big beautiful $2000 check" for the second one, but he voted to approve $600 They kinda had to do something. People couldn't work, if you don't get the people some relief on a mass unemployment crisis, well that's the kind of thing that tends to end with politicians dangling from light poles. E: also even if he privately opposed the checks, they were each a part of massive must-pass covid legislation, and the only way to block them would have been to veto the entire bill which would have touched off economic panic. No way would that have been worth it. Even Trump backed down when his threat to veto the second bill because the checks weren't big and beautiful enough caused chaos VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 17:36 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 17:27
|
|
|
SixteenShells posted:I'd like to run a hypothetical forward. Trump is a legitimate threat to democracy. He will spearhead a Christofascist takeover of the USA. Any pretense of democracy is eliminated, Trump is our new dictator on day one. In that scenario, do Sotomayor and the other liberals on SCOTUS and in Congress plan to keep their jobs? Like, say that dictator Trump keeps SCOTUS around and doesn't even fire any of them, and for some reason he keeps Congress around even though they don't decide anything meaningful. Are they going to willingly keep their seats while America turns into Nazi Germany 3.0 and lend legitimacy to its government with their presence? SixteenShells posted:So why all this hand-wringing about careers? If there's a real chance of all the above happening, isn't giving up your position in government to help elect Biden a no-brainer decision? See above. Bernie was polling like 20 points higher against Trump than Clinton was. If he was a crazy dictator who was gonna nuke the world like they said, nominating Sanders should have been a no-brainer. Why would you take any risks even if you thought Hillary could still win. In reality they would rather lose to Trump than countenance Hillary stepping aside when it was Her Turn, so going with the careerist was the no-brainer regardless of the fact that she was the worse candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
spacemang_spliff posted:couldn't biden just put loans in forbearance and set interest rates to 0% for the entirety of his presidency (thus giving people a reason to reelect him) No he cannot, last May Democrats joined Republicans to make it illegal to put loans back in forbearance after September 2023 E: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/30/debt-ceiling-deal-biden-student-loans-interest-00099144 quote:The deal reached by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to raise the nation’s debt limit would force the administration to resume collecting federal student loan payments and interest for millions of Americans at the end of the summer. VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 18:14 on Apr 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious the law requiring the student loan moratorium to end was aimed at the Supreme Court, to give them the green light to overturn his debt forgiveness order. Without that, there was always the risk that canceling the debt forgiveness would have put pressure on Biden to continue kicking the can down the road and extend the moratorium again like he did before the midterms, which would have been worth more than $20,000 if it went on indefinitely. Fortunately the court did not have to worry about that, and now of course congressional Dems are going even farther to strip the president of any ability to forgive student loans
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
One thing that kind of amazes me about our presidential system is... how easy it is to shift blame. Like, if you're president you can just say "oh I totally want to do this good thing, I'm ordering it", then you go to your opponents in congress and say "hey if you pass a law making it illegal for me to do this good thing, I'll sign it in exchange for getting to complain about you", boom done then you can claim you tried to do a good thing but gosh darn it my hands are tied. In a parliamentary system you can't get away with this. If the PM says "yes I call on Parliament to do this good thing" then you bring up a bill to make good things illegal and join the opposition to pass it, it's patently obvious to everyone what just happened. But for some reason... people just don't make that connection when there's one extra step? It's so weird.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
SgtMongoose posted:The ones with high up jobs like SCOTUS or Congress don't believe that. Not any more than Mitch McConnell thought Obama was literally the Antichrist about to launch Jade Helm Part 2. The "1000 years of Trumpian darkness" is propaganda for the stupid proles to VBNMW. They hate Trump because, first he's an uncouth boor who embarrasses them, and second he's a disruptive outsider to the MIC war industry money train with foolishly unserious ideas like "Iraq was a mistake." Yeah think about how someone would act if they genuinely thought that Trump getting elected again meant they'd be marched off to the camps, and then look at how they actually act. Remember when he was president Trump abused all kinds of executive authority that had been granted by congress over the years with the assumption that only people with great  would ever be elected. So now that they know this, they acted to put limits on all those powers right? Oh, no, in fact they're trying to expand the president's authority and give a future Trump even more power. Compare to state level Republicans, who have actual beliefs, moving to strip incoming Democratic governors of every ounce of executive authority they can. And if Trump does win they will probably renew and extend his power to spy on Americans etc And so many examples. Did they address the senate balance by admitting DC as a state? Did they ban gerrymandering to break Republican supermajorities? Did they restore the Voting Rights Act to protect democracy? Would they even consider packing the court? Oh...no...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
spacemang_spliff posted:did they eliminate the filibuster so they could do the poo poo they pretend they want to do? lol never For some stuff they don't even need to! They could just let the wiretapping authority expire!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:Libs stumbling rear end backwards into truth lmfao How dare you, the German emperor only committed genocide in Africa, because unlike some Führers, the monarchy had respectability and decorum!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
This was also nice and polite because he wasn't saying that stuff about other Europeans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 03:32
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:https://twitter.com/axios/status/1778549091737198633?t=jcpU70Rw03i9dERqjmrSmg&s=19 I'm gay and in Texas so I'm around queer Hispanic people and I've heard some of them say Latine I don't get why it makes some if you guys so mad. Like, nonbinary anglos exist and some of them prefer to refer to themselves with gender neutral language like "they" even though that's not customary usage or whatever. Nonbinary Spanish speakers also exist, is it really such a big deal if the want to use words like elle, Latine, etc to refer to themselves, like who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:lol how is it not Doing a Colonialism to invent a neologism because you don't like the rules of a language and would rather impose your ideology on it? Idk I've heard Spanish speakers use it. Is it really inconceivable that, like, queer and nonbinary Spanish speakers exist, and maybe they're having their own conversations about sexuality and gender and language. Idk maybe they don't have original thoughts of their own and their discussions and thoughts about queerness or gender equality or identity or whatever are all imposed by colonialist Anglos, but I kinda doubt it personally.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Tbf though my most colonialist opinion probably is that grammatical gender is dumb af and should be gotten rid of already. Do I really feel like remembering that pens are ladies unless they are ballpoint pens and then they are gentlemen. Or that you need a gazillion demonstratives in three genders to get around in German and they don't even make sense, girls are sexless neuter things sure why not. Or that (most) Dutch has two genders, but they're not what you think, the two genders are (1) male-or-female and (2) genderless. This includes English, gendered pronouns are dumb too. VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 04:16 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 04:13
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Latine's fine. Latinx was abominable though and I will never stop shaming academia for making an exclusively textual term the default spoken notation. Did anyone ever actually try to pronounce that in earnest. I've only seen it written, I just figured it was the equivalent of other unpronounceable written conventions like s/he
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 04:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Who decides this stuff, though? Idk who decides anything. I remember my AD&D 2E players handbook in the early 90s had a note at the beginning explaining that they used "he" everywhere because it traditionally could be used as a gender-neutral pronoun, and women shouldn't feel excluded or take it as implying that the game isn't for them, sorry but "he or she" is too clunky and "they" is plural. Now obviously that they even had to say that meant that there were conversations about pronouns and gender equality and feminism (not gender identity yet of course), and that they knew some people didn't agree with them. Nowadays you basically never see "he" as gender neutral. But like no wizard's council sat down and decided for everyone, the people who thought that was kinda sexist eventually convinced enough people that the customs changed
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
MadSparkle posted:Latine like Lateen in pronunciation ? Spanish pronunciation so like La-TEE-nay Like other Spanish words that end in e: jefe, ese
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 05:57
|
|
|
Rick posted:
Also this kind of thing is not a recent invention of white millenial SJWs or whatever. Elle was proposed as a gender-neutral alternative to él/ella/ello (he/she/it) in the 70s for pretty much the same reason that gender-neutral alternatives to he or phrases like "all men are created equal" or waiter/waitress steward/stewardess were proposed in English. Women and gender/sexual minorities wanted language to be more equal along with everything else they were trying to make more equal. And it's opposed by the usual stuffy bores who think everything is fine the way it is and these women's libbers are getting too offended by language that has worked for hundreds of years. Personally I think some change along those lines will come eventually. Language is used to communicate and describe our world, if the world changes, language changes. If women gain more equality to men I don't think it's practical for male pronouns to always be the default anymore. As people who don't fit in the gender binary become more visible, a mandatory binary in pronouns just doesn't work. VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 06:45 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
tristeham posted:i thought latino was already gender neutral Latino can be masculine or gender neutral depending on the context. Much like how he can be masculine or gender neutral in English depending on the context. (If you've ever heard "every dog has his day", his is gender neutral there). That use has been declining in English and you pretty much never hear it now outside of old-timey phrases like that. Using masculine pronouns as the default when someone's sex is unknown and unspecified comes off as sexist today, because language changes. Guys like William Safire fought against this but they couldn't hold back the tide. E: And like, nonbinary people (especially those assigned female at birth) don't often go by "he" citing its grammatical history as the gender neutral pronoun, and I expect few of them would be convinced to use he/him pronouns on that basis VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 13:52 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 13:43
|
|
|
Casey Finnigan posted:Maybe I'm nuts but I don't think the arbitrary grammatical rules about gender have much to do with the actual circumstances of gender equality in reality. They don't make people sexist, but some people still don't like terms that sound sexist. Like, saying "committee chairman" doesn't make people sexist or prevent women chairmen from being elected, but nevertheless it's not unreasonable that some people prefer more explicitly gender neutral titles like committee chair or head or whatever. Rick posted:I wouldn't say you're dead wrong but it was definitely used by many of the younger latinx (I'll use it since they wanted to use it) peers at my last job. Some of the older latinas (the term they preferred) really hated it though and was at a staff meeting wherein people got pretty fired up about it, while all us mixed/non-hispanic people in the room just tried to be as quiet as possible. Like with most of these things the right thing to do is to use the term that people like for themselves. Yeah this dynamic plays out a lot I think. Some women (usually older) tend to see the replacement of sex-specific terms, customs, places, etc as taking something away from them, something that was just for them "why are you saying we can't be Latinas anymore!". Younger people are more likely to see gender neutral stuff as indicating greater equality and gendered forms as patronizing or exclusionary. The older women aren't automatically sexist, the younger women aren't automatically snowflakes, but time passes and in the long run the stuff younger people are doing will probably become the new standard. Good example is Bette Midler hearing about the term "people who menstruate" https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1543979948611981313 She is not a sexist or a transphobe, but she is an Old and her initial reaction to an unfamiliar gender neutral term was "they're taking things away from women"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 14:27
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:
HashtagGirlboss posted:
Now I'm imagining someone trying to pronounce other written conventions like s/he 'Will suh-slash-he be there to pick me up at the airport' VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 15:14 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
HallelujahLee posted:jesucristo jesucriste
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
mags posted:iirc one of the biggest issues with latinx is that the -x suffix in spanish doesnt make sense It works fine in writing when 'x' can be a wildcard or placeholder for 'o' or 'a' not a letter to be pronounced. Latino/a or s/her are also unpronounceable. So is Latin?[a,o] but computer coders can use expressions like that without a problem because they write code and don't generally speak it. Not surprising that Latinx came out of academia which primarily works through written communication. It's just that, if you want to solve the issue in speech, you need to come up with something that people can, you know, actually pronounce
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:54 |
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:https://x.com/justinamash/status/1778825446441828725 Hall passes and coordinating bills to fail and rotating villains are a conspiracy theory, it's just a coincidence that popular bills which elites don't like but that Democrats want to be seen voting for always seem to fail by exactly 1 vote VitalSigns has issued a correction as of 18:18 on Apr 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2024 18:16
|
|