In the face of âeradicationâ, one trans activist is preparing to fight â and sheâs sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybodyâs problem
In the face of âeradicationâ, one trans activist is preparing to fight â and sheâs sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybodyâs problem
I like the speed downvote within under a minute, and nitpicking whilst ignoring the substance of my comment, top tier wit on display
Honesty itâs 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. Youâre making a lot of unfounded claims about what you think the entire population wants based on your feelings.
Donât be dramatic. As soon as I posted I went back and added better wording. Youâre 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 isnât a rickroll you can click though on a citation:
No I posted this:
Then added this immediately after hitting post/ before you posted:
I didnât edit anything after your response only before. So it seems you are lying about that to make it look like Iâm 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 âthey burned a billion dollarsâ to stop fascism?
You responded with a wiki link about âFourth branch of governmentâ which doesnât answer the question.
Thatâs what I saw in my inbox, and thatâs the comment I replied to. Maybe donât go off half baked if you want to avoid this scenario? Put the whole thought down or add more context from the beginning.
Iâm 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 - youâre being very obtuse or didnât 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 isnât an editorial or an essay. Thereâs no problem with going back and adding to a comment. Maybe donât lie about people changing their posts after you respond just because you canât be bothered to read more than your inbox.
I was trying to get you to just state your argument in one place because I canât see more than one comment while replying and your statement was changing because of your âmental slipâ.
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 donât 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 didnât 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 wasnât lost to republicans as a result of the democrats campaign. It was lost because of the timing of Ruth Bader Ginsburgâs death so either you donât know what youâre 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 âfourth branchâ 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 âfourth branchâ 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
âFourth branchâ-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. Youâre 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 thereâs no log history, just the âeditedâ tag.
Iâd rather we not play the loosing game of money = speech. You cannot outflank the right on immigration via border âcrackdownsâ 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 itâs the government of the highest bidder; Elon and crew just bought themselves seats at the table. Are you seriously arguing for autocratic oligopoly???
No, theyâve had some very public infighting between the âold guardâ 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 Iâm not excited about the âresistanceâ coming from DC given their track record the last time Trump was in office, when he didnât have unified government. Peeling off a few house seats should not be the victory lap youâre 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
Weâve always had a partisan press. What rolled backs the worst excesses of the original âAmerica Firstâ 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 âbully pulpitâ 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 donât 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 â Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Moneyâ we have to win enough elections to do that. You canât change shit with the GOP in office. Why does that need to be explained to you? You canât possibly be arguing in good faith if I have to tell you thatâŠ
Citizens united is already in place. To undo it we have to win elections with it in place. Again that shouldnât need to be explained.
Yeah thatâs 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 couldâve been worse. Republicans could have a super majority and really do damage. But youâre 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 âshit on voters by gaslighting them about realityâ? How did they âget destroyedâ? You sound like you repeating things youâve heard without understanding them enough to articulate what they mean.
Again, you arenât 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. Youâre having a meltdown because democrats didnât win when the odds were against them and suggesting they shouldâve put in less effort by spending less.
He canât do it without enough votes in senate. Again youâre showing you donât know what youâre talking about by blaming democrats for not doing something that isnât possible.
Republicans controlled senate at this time. Again youâre showing you donât know what youâre talking about.
You admit Mitch blocked while in the same breath blaming democrats for Mitchâs actions. There is no way you are arguing in good faith. This has to be trolling.
Yeah so many other plays that you canât mention because they donât exist. If there were other viable options democrats wouldâve 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.
Youâre the one blaming democrats for losing the favor of billionaire media owners by trying to tax themâŠ
Iâm 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. Theyâve 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 donât make finance reform a campaign issue. Theyâve had chances at alternate voting structures - and theyâve 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. Trumpâs 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. âTax credits for small businessesâ is not that.
I am tired of team blue constantly fundraising and vote gathering on the message of âthis is the most consequential election everâ 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.
Ginsburgâs replacement should have been a huge battle, after Reid kept the filibuster and set himself up. Barrettâs 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 arenât they fighting on every aspect and angle they can? The MAGAs have an inverse apocalyptic tone and fight dirty, on and off Capitol Hill.