this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
66 points (88.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7186 readers
742 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For fucks sake.
If you can't even remember what it was like just four fucking years ago under Trump, then you know what? You fuckos deserve him.
I'm white, male, and I can cosplay as christian and conservative. The people that can't pass as white, aren't obviously male, and can't temporarily appear to be christian and conservative will be far more fucked than you currently seem to believe is possible if Trump gets re-elected.
This 'both sides' shit is so goddamn tiresome, esp. when one side is demonstrably better even on the genocide of the Palestinian people.
We can vote for genocide, or genocide that sells pride flags once a year. As a man who has sucked my fair share of dicks, you make a compelling argument, and hey, it’s been almost a decade since democrats allowed us to get married, so we kinda owe them this one!
Thanks, Ally™️!
Hey, just so we're clear, Biden is trying to make sure that The Gays™️ have the right to exist, has been expanding title IX protections, and is doing his best to make sure that LGBTQ+ people are protected under the law, and which Republican states are suing over to prevent source. I'm sure you think that the fight is over for you, you've got your basic bare minimum rights, and that's good enough. But I'm old enough to remember when California (!!!) had a vote and overturned marriage equality (the effort to overturn marriage equality was largely funded by the Mormon church, BTW), which is what led to Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015, which, yes, was under Obama). But the thing you gotta remember here is that Obergefell was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy, Ginsburd, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the majority, with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. The current court, courtesy of Trump, would have Roberts, Coney-Barrett, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Goresuch against marriage equality, and only Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan in favor.
So, yeah, cool story bro. Tell your trans friends that you didn't care enough about them to make the minimum effort.
Irrelevant, since that was decided by the Supreme Court, not Obama.
Yes, the SC sucks now, but it's going to suck regardless of who gets elected. That's kinda the point of the SC. It's independent of the executive branch.
The president has the power to appoint judges. So yeah, it's very much the fault of Trump that Roe was overturned. For LGBTQ+ rights to remain, we--the entire US--need a president that will appoint judges that are willing to uphold that basic legal principle. The president can do some things through executive action, but he does need a congress and court system on his side to make lasting changes.
Where did I say that it wasn't Trump's fault? Yes, Trump appointed the judges, and that might be a good reason not to vote for him, but that isn't the argument you were making.
The Democrats didn't codify Roe into law for decades, even when they had control of all three branches of government.
What are they doing to fix this? Honest question.
Biden claims that he wants to, but unless Dems hold the senate and take the house, there's no way in hell that's happening. Even if they did, they're have to end the filibuster, which I think is probably not a good idea. And I don't think that a law would hold up to SCOTUS as it is now, because 'muh state's rights'. And honestly, even if it had been federal law for decades, this SCOTUS still would have thrown it out, because Trump packed the court with three batshit crazy conservatives.
Yes it is critical that we allow a senate rule that was invented to keep slavery from being outlawed around. There is no possible way that we could make specific laws that were immune to the filibuster, or simply reinstate the filibuster after passing laws codifying existing SCOTUS rulings. The most important aspect of government is that good things can never override the status quo, only bad things get to do that.
The point of the filibuster is that you don't want the majority to trample the rights of the minority. Imagine what happens when the Senate has a simple majority of Republicans again. And it's pretty likely, since Manchin is retiring (WV is very, very solidly red; there's functionally zero chance that Dems will keep that seat), and both Ossof and Warnock will have a serious uphill fight to retain their seats in the coming years; the only reason Warnock won the last time is because Republicans were convinced the election was rigged, and didn't show up. (So, I guess that's one thing Trump did right...?)
Republicans took the House, barely, in '22. If Trump wins this year, then the odds are pretty good that Republicans will retain the House and take the Senate. A filibuster is a check on that, unless the senate majority throws it out, and so far Republicans haven't been willing to completely gut it. So far. If Dems choose to do that--and they don't have the votes to do so--they'd be shooting themselves in the foot for when they lose the Senate again. If anything, Dems should be strengthening the filibuster, albeit going back to the old rules where you actually had to stand up and talk the whole time.
The Dems have never used the filibuster to block Republican legislative initiatives. It's only been used to stop things like the Civil Rights act, and ensure that massive government handouts are given to well-connected contractors.
You need to intenalize the purpose of the filibuster, it's not to stop "the majority to trample the rights of the minority," or whatever idealic thing you've fixated on.
Here is something to chew on:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/05/politics/filibuster-senate-explained/
That is an absolutely, 100% false claim. (And, if you want to check the source, Repustar is the single largest contributor, and they have a very high reputation for being factual.) Both Democratic and Republican minorities have made quite liberal use of the filibuster to block legislation that they couldn't directly vote down.
There are literally no sources there. Give me the senate records that show the dems did it. There should be bills that came up for the passing and the outcome of those bills. I see nothing there. That websites source is "trust me bro." Also you then cite mediabias fact check to fact check the source that of the filibuster claim.
Bills don't come up for a vote if they're filibustered. They leave committee, and then there's debate. You need 60 votes--cloture--to end debate and bring a bill up for a floor vote. If either party leader has indicated that their party intend to filibuster a bill, then the bill never even comes up, because you're not going to be able to end debate and take it up for a vote. If you want to see what was filibustered over the years, your best bet is going to be looking at what got referred out of committee, and then never got voted on in the first place.
If you want to do that kind of legwork, be my guest.
Are you saying that mediabiasfactcheck is unreliable? That's a bold move there.
Oh, this one should be good. Tell me, how has biden been better than trump on the issue of Palestinian genocide?
Source
Source
We already know that Trump has nothing but contempt for Palestinians, and that he is fully committed to supporting Israel and Zionism, because his evangelical base demands it.
But honestly, if you're dumb enough to think Trump is going to be better, go fucking vote for him and see what happens. And when you're crying about Zionists taking all of the Palestinian land in the West Bank, and killing every last Palestinian in Gaza with Trump's encouragement, I'll remind you of this.