• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    1 hour ago

    The whole Israel thing was just the Democrat Party Establishment practicing how get away with supporting Fascism, abroad were Americans are safe from the consequences so it was easier to get away with it.

    Now they’re applying all that practice at home.

  • Allemaniac@lemmy.world
    47·
    2 hours ago

    if you are unhappy with the dem representatives, why not enter politics yourself? Always only see whining people but never people willing to actually tackle any problems. Greetings from Europe, get your shit together dems, finger pointing isn’t going to resolve anything in your favour.

    • javiwhite@feddit.ukEnglish
      51·
      1 hour ago

      Unhappy with your favourite football teams results? Why not play for the team yourself?

      The reality is, if you want to work in positions capable of making change, it is an incredibly difficult and expensive uphill struggle to get there; any position of power is a position people are normally groomed for from a young age.

      Anyone can play football, but playing at your local field isn’t going to change a champions league final, just like being elected as an independent would at most, prevent the majority from becoming a super majority.

      So as much as the gentry may want us to think it’s an open game, most politicians come from a rather specific private schooled background. Sure you get a few that break the mold; and just because someone is private schooled, doesn’t mean they won’t be socially minded. I’m just pointing to the fact that it’s silly to insist any laymen can just be elected into office and make a difference; you need significant resources (especially in America where everything is commercialisation dialled up to the max) or you need to compromise and toe the line with one of the existing parties.

      Just look at NYC mayoral candidates; The democrats are losing their mind and would rather the republicans take the position than their prime candidate; simply because he’s not someone from their very specific definition of an appropriate background for a candidate.

      That’s not even at the federal level. That’s just a city mayor… Either you play their game, or you’re not allowed to kick the ball.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        61·
        2 hours ago

        With what money?

        Because I live in Oklahoma, it’s legal to fire me for being trans, and there is no help for DV, so my ex emptied my bank account and maxed out my credit cards after torturing me.

        I’ve applied for jobs elsewhere no luck.

        • uuldika@lemmy.ml
          2·
          2 hours ago

          it’s fucked. I’m so sorry. I know it’s a million times easier said than done, but I can’t help myself to not give advice:

          join social media groups for the trans community in a blue state, look into the orgs there, see if there’s a couch you could crash on. save up what you can for gas or a bus ticket. once you get there, plug into the community, connect with services, find work. it’s risky but it’s better to try than to give up and die.

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            11·
            2 hours ago

            I have already done that.

            There is no hope. There is no help. I am sick of people pretending there is.

            • uuldika@lemmy.ml
              2·
              29 minutes ago

              my partners got out of Georgia and they were both broke as fuck. it is possible.

              • andros_rex@lemmy.world
                11·
                10 minutes ago

                With a support system perhaps.

                I don’t have one. I have adhd and ptsd and can barely manage to survive where I am. I’ll go down with the ship. I’ll put up signs, and someday they’ll arrest me, and I’ll be the eleventh death in Oklahoma County jail for 2025. There has never been hope in my life, and there’s no reason to hope now.

  • DoubleDongle@lemmy.world
    1·
    5 hours ago

    Eh, they took out every bit of democracy-breaking bullshit they possibly could without a majority as far as I know. They’re trying now. I’m holding out a little hope that it won’t make it through the house again, even.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    13·
    11 hours ago

    its like senator klobaucher doing the flag bit, its called half-assing, pretend they are actually doing something when its too late.

    • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
      12·
      10 hours ago

      like they give a shit,

      Their corporate and rich donors will give them some kickbacks as a thanks. which will be much more than any average citizens can pay.

    • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      527·
      14 hours ago

      Honestly, I’m at the point where I support the full-on dissolution of the United States. There’s just no coming back from this level of decay of political norms and culture. This isn’t going to end without either a peaceful dissolution of the country or a civil war that kills millions of us. I say we just skip the civil war part, grant all 50 states independence, and let the states come back together into whatever new nation or collection of nations they wish to form.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          7 hours ago

          Part of the agreement to let all states have their independence would be some basic requirements. One of those requirements would likely be that the new states have to allow freedom of movement and migration from the other US states, at the very least for several years after the national divorce. Ideally the president orchestrating this would negotiate some sort of basic EU-style customs and trade union. So the states can set their own laws and national policies, but people can move freely between the various new nations. Hell, most states would likely want this anyway. Does Mississippi really want to trap blue voters in its borders without giving them any relief valve? I would think they would be far happier just maintaining open border deals with the other new states, thus allowing people to simply vote with their feet if they don’t want to stay in Mississippi. The alternative is that you end up having a mini civil war inside the borders of just one state.

      • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
        64·
        11 hours ago

        I want to agree, but I’ve spent years and incurred a ton of debt getting credentialed enough to enter a career where you’re licensed state by state and I can’t just transfer my license to another state. I’m in a red state because I really love the area and finally found where I belong, and it just so happens to, unfortunately, be a red state. I would really rather not be thrown to the wolves like that. I’d much prefer a radical restructuring of the existing federal political order aligned with democratic confederalist principles, a very radical kind of Third Founding, especially because my municipality in particular is very blue.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          42·
          7 hours ago

          Such a hypothetical president could add some basic terms to their dissolution plan. They would be in a position to organize a treaty between the new nations. And part of the agreement to let states have their independence is that freedom of travel must be preserved between the states, similar to how the EU operates. So people can always vote with their feet and leave.

          But if you’re asking if we can preserve the nation just to help blue voters in red states, I’m sorry. Ultimately the people of each state are going to have to be responsible for their own fate. I would owe nothing more to the citizens of Alabama than I do the citizens of Azerbaijan. It’s your country, not mine. You’re responsible for it. If your countrymen want to turn their nation into the seventh circle of Hell, well those are their sins, not ours.

          I know it sucks, and it’s not fair to a lot of good people. But the likely alternative is that the city you cherish so much will be burned to ashes in the civil war we are inexorably marching towards. Realize, I do not champion as radical a solution as complete national dissolution lightly. If I didn’t think the alternative was a horrific and bloody war, I wouldn’t think to recommend it.

          A second civil war would be so, so much worse than the first one. The destructive technology is so much greater. And we wouldn’t even be divided between two nice clear blocks of North and South. We would have fighting between states and within states. And foreign adversaries will be happy to contribute to help fan the flames even more. At least with the first civil war foreign powers were mostly content to ignore the US; it was a remote backwater at the time. But now? The US is a global hegemon, and we have no shortage of adversaries that would love to see us burn. China and Russia will probably be arming both sides of the conflict, just happy to see us tear each other to pieces. I’m worried about millions of people being killed, tens of millions displaced, most of our greatest cities turned into bombed-out wrecks, and our entire society seeing a massive and permanent decline in our quality of life and standard of living. Look at the images of the leveled cities of Syria. That is our future on the path we are currently on.

          We could walk that road, or we could have some maturity and wisdom and say, “look, this nation clearly isn’t working anymore. It was assembled based on compromises for the world of 1780, and it’s no longer working for us.” Instead of tearing ourselves apart violently, let’s just go for a peaceful national divorce. No one needs to die. We don’t have tens of millions made homeless. We don’t have to watch as all the great cities and infrastructure we’ve spent generations building are reduced to bombed-out craters. We can simply walk away with all of our lives, infrastructure, and national wealth intact. Even if the national divorce was a difficult and expensive process, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what we will lose in the civil war that awaits us.

      • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
        5·
        8 hours ago

        look into the DSA find your local chapter. join.

        that’s how we got Zorhan

        if you disagree with my specific choice of party, that’s valid, join another grassroots movement, but join.

        (in case you already are, I’m giving you a high 5, and I apologise for assuming you didn’t)

  • Burninator05@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    6 hours ago

    What if my rep is Mike Johnson? I dont think he’s ever cared about anyone but himself. I couldn’t even protest vote against an under dog last election because the opposition was somehow more MAGA and I didnt want to embolden them with votes.

  • P1k1e@lemmy.world
    31·
    9 hours ago

    Now trump’s just gonna say it’s Schumers bill…fucking may a’s well be

    Edit: goddamn auto correct

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    144·
    19 hours ago

    I’ve voted against him every time he’s had a primary challenger for the last 26 years. Maybe we’ll finally get more people to show up in 2028. I’m sick of retirees picking my Senators.

      • DarkSirrush@lemmy.ca
        304·
        18 hours ago

        No vote is useless, though getting arrested before you can do anything to assist meaningful change is.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            85·
            14 hours ago

            *ᵀʰᶦˢ ᵐᵉˢˢᵃᵍᵉ ᶦˢ ᵇʳᵒᵘᵍʰᵗ ᵗᵒ ʸᵒᵘ ᵇʸ ᵗʰᵉ ᶜʰᶦⁿᵉˢᵉ ᵈᶦᶜᵗᵃᵗᵒʳˢʰᶦᵖ

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                2·
                6 hours ago

                It was a comment made jokingly, I don’t actually believe with any conviction that the user is an agent of our enemies.

                I just see what they advocate for as the same thing our enemies desire.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
        81·
        16 hours ago

        did they say that they were skipping action, protesting and organizing?

        no. no they didn’t. they just talked about their voting habits.

        • DeusUmbra@lemmy.worldEnglish
          17·
          12 hours ago

          If you aren’t arming yourself, you aren’t doing enough. Soon will come the time for incredible violence, either prepare or wait for death.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
            61·
            10 hours ago

            do you exclusively type in non sequiturs or is it just under this post you decided this was an effective tactic?

            i don’t even necessarily disagree with you but bro go make your own post about it

        • DeusUmbra@lemmy.worldEnglish
          210·
          17 hours ago

          I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote, you should, just like you should attend protests, but know that is does nothing to fix the issue. Only violence will solve this problem.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    1242·
    18 hours ago

    Congratulations, dipshit [Schumer, not OP], you’ve done something perfectly counterproductive by (a) making it sound like (presumably) something that’s less of a blatant Orwellian farce that turned people against it just because of the name, and (b) creating confusion that makes it harder to organize against it because now there are two different names out there.

    • stabby_cicada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      17·
      17 hours ago

      I think you’re giving Schumer way too much credit in saying changing the bill’s name is counterproductive.

      Is Trump going to stop calling it the big beautiful bill? Are his minions going to change their branding? Of course not.

      Are Democrats and liberals going to stop calling it the big ugly bill or whatever other parody names they use? Of course not.

      And once the bill passes, which it will, the name of the bill will mean absolutely nothing.

      Changing the bill’s name isn’t counterproductive. It’s just a complete waste of time that lets Schumer - virtue signaling asshat that he is - pretend he’s doing something despite not having the guts to fight Trump on anything.

      • DrSoap@lemmy.world
        20·
        17 hours ago

        I know him irl. Not personally, not well, but I’ve interacted with him several times. He is cheap despite being well off. He is not nice unless he thinks you could do something for him. He looks down on people he perceives as beneath him. He has a mean streak. Him making a show of being a good guy but doing nothing in actuality makes sense.

        • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
          7·
          16 hours ago

          Him making a show of being a good guy but doing nothing in actuality makes sense.

          I just kind of assume this of career politicians. How can you sit in there for so long, doing nothing, just taking payout after payout

      • grue@lemmy.world
        7·
        17 hours ago

        Okay, fine: he tried to be counterproductive and still managed to fail at it.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
      191·
      11 hours ago

      2017 - this has to be satire

      2018 - oh wow, I didn’t know that was a thing

      2019 - oh wtf nobody’s going to stop him?

      2020 - Oh cool, pandemic. He wants to inject bleach and horse juice. Cool cool cool.

      2021 to 2024 - the great unfucking

      2025 - haha we’re so fucked

  • GoldenQuetzal@lemmy.world
    5011·
    12 hours ago

    And he came out against Zohran, too. Useless old bag. UPDATE - this was based on a list of Dems that weren’t supporting* him that I saw on Lemmy elsewhere. Looks like Schumer has since congratulated him but still not endorsed him. I don’t live online and have a job so excuse me for not updating immediately.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      145·
      12 hours ago

      “vote blue no matter who” my ass

      edit: also im seeing there’s some nuance and the person im replying too might not have been perfectly honest or trustworthy

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        44·
        13 hours ago

        This makes no sense. The vote was blue vs blue, and the guy defending him and people who aren’t sure about him are blue.

        You can’t vote or be for against anything but blue in the primary for a democrat.

        Unless of course you are just saying no one should have voted for the candidate that you seem to want in?

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
          2·
          12 hours ago

          pretty sure this is about the general election, after the primary, thus it’s blue against red (or blue against blue against red since apparently cuomo is deciding not to take the hint)

          im also maybe seeing that schumer was saying some stuff positive about mamdami but just didn’t endorse him?

          i don’t have the time to figure out all that nuance before i send this reply so for now i’ll leave it as a question mark and encourage investigation into trusted sources

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
              1·
              11 hours ago

              I agree that Silwa wouldn’t normally win, but if you have centrists voting for Cuomo and Adams, some centrists and left of that voting for Mamdani, the 300,000+ voters out of a million that voted for Silwa last election may come closer than one would expect.

              Hopefully it’ll be 40% Mamdani, 20, 20, 20. But if it appears close I can see Cuomo or Adams "endorsing the other and dropping hoping to get a chance

              • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                10 hours ago

                sliwa is polling at 7% in the latest poll

                Even if we assume he get doubled that like 15%

                The remainder split 3 way evenly is about 28%

                sliwa would have to win like 26% then have the 3 split evenly 24.6 + 24.6 + 24.6

                Extremely rare for that to even be possible.

                My bets are 60% chance Mamdani wins, 35% cuomo win, 4% adams win, 1% sliwa win.

                • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  10 hours ago

                  I hope your right. Now we need 350 more of those mayors, 230ish new congress members, and 53 new senators and we can start to have a start

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            2·
            12 hours ago

            Yeah, I haven’t looked at much but it looks like Schumer supported the winning candidate because he won and is now going to need support to beat the Republican candidate when that time comes. So yes, in theory Schumer is going to say to vote for the Democrats, but would you rather him support Adams or Cuomo who are going to run as independents now, likely to ensure the votes are split for Democrats, or Silwa the Republican? I don’t know much about Silwa. He’s a 71 year old who focuses all his efforts towards crime it seems. Which being a Republican who is staunchly anti crime just means to me he will be trying to persecute the population for existing in any manner he doesn’t like.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      21·
      19 hours ago

      senate is joever it’s house now

      but yeah for locker stuff that’s fair