• Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    101·
    15 hours 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.

      • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        51·
        5 hours ago

        And they thank you for your compliance.

        We’re all making friends here aren’t we.

        But seriously, the party doesn’t even respect the primary elections that I have been voting in as a registered democrat who has given many small-time donations and all of my votes over the years.

        They didn’t follow our own organizational rules, why should I trust them with my money? They already have my stinking vote.

    • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      618·
      1 day 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.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        1·
        5 hours ago

        grant all 50 states independence, and let the states come back together into whatever new nation or collection of nations they wish to form.

        Kind of reminds me of this map from the Unofficial Fallout TTRPG:

        Here the 48 contiguous States are divvied up between 13 Commonwealths with Alaska being part of the Northwest and Hawaii being in the Southwest.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          4 hours ago

          Something like that might actually work. There’s a reason the oldest nations on Earth tend to be smaller geographically. Very large countries with vast regional differences in politics, needs, and desires tend to not be stable long term. Countries as big as the US tend to either break up or only maintain their integrity by collapsing into authoritarianism. You can force a dysfunctional union together with enough violence. But government is meant to serve the needs of the people, not the people the needs of the government. The federal government was created by human beings to serve our needs. Remember of the people, by the people, for the people? If our existing nation is no longer serving our needs, it’s OK to let it go. We don’t have to keep propping up this corpse of a nation just for the sake of tradition. Americans, as a people, aren’t going anywhere. We’ll still be Americans whether we share one state or many.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          4 hours ago

          It’s the cold sober realism that comes with looking at where we have been, where we are, and where we’re headed. You’re just in denial.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          20 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·
        1 day 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·
          21 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.

            • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              4 hours ago

              This is a myth. Different states still have their own unique political cultures. Some of those differences are explained by rural/urban divide, but only in the most general of sense. It is the norm in most nations for the rural areas to be more conservative than the urban areas. But it would be reductive and oversimplistic to say that the US and Mexico share the same politics simply because both have more conservative people in the rural areas.

              The idea that red state blue states don’t exist is just a product of American exceptionalism, a blindness that prevents us from comparing ourselves to other nations.

    • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
      15·
      24 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.

      • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
        7·
        22 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)

  • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    162·
    1 day 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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    1382·
    1 day 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
      19·
      1 day 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
        25·
        1 day 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
          8·
          1 day 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

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    16·
    1 day ago

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

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOPEnglish
      23·
      1 day ago

      senate is joever it’s house now

      but yeah for locker stuff that’s fair

  • GoldenQuetzal@lemmy.world
    4914·
    1 day 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
      146·
      1 day 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
        54·
        1 day 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·
          1 day 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·
              1 day 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
                3·
                24 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·
                  23 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·
            1 day 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.

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.todayEnglish
      201·
      1 day 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

  • LostWanderer@fedia.io
    553·
    1 day ago

    ROFL Democrats are pretty useless these days…I’ve been calling my representatives, sending letters, and generally being more politically involved to make sure this terrible reconciliation bill dies in a fire. I hope to oust the republicans who represent Kansas too. They are so cursed and incompetent, spineless and weak in the face of donor daddies telling them what to do.

      • LostWanderer@fedia.io
        141·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, they are enabling this hostile takeover of government by not actively fighting against it. Even voting yes for some harmful legislation as the good little accelerationists they are, for donor daddies whispering in their ears.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          1·
          19 hours ago

          Like helping Donald avert a government shutdown.

          They’re not even willing to make it inconvenient for fascists to take power.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          72·
          1 day ago

          They’ve stated their plan is to let it happen until it’s so bad people vote Trump out which is hilarious considering everyone wanted to call people on the left accelerationists. Now accelerationism is the only strategy the Democrats have, and where are all the people who so loudly opposed accelerationism? I can barely find anyone even using that word anymore.

          • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
            31·
            1 day ago

            dems and gop are codependenant on each other, gop needs dems to improve the economy so they can rail on it, and adding anti-immigraiton and racism and culture is a bonus because they cant use the economy is bad bit forever, and dems depends on gop messing up things so bad dems get elected, its a neverending cycle, and they all work behind the scenes on this.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      247·
      1 day ago

      You clearly don’t read congress.gov or watch CSPAN. First, they have no power due to minority. Secondly, they cannot filibuster a reconciliation bill. All they can do is debate provisions and propose amendments. That’s it.

      They debated every provision, line-by-line, over four 24+ hour oversight committee hearings. Then Schumer forced the Republicans to read the entire reconciliation aloud over 12 hours. Then they held a record 23-hour amendment “vote-a-rama” to try to limit the provisions.

      This is how it went: https://files.catbox.moe/1lwoem.mp4

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        132·
        1 day ago

        Weird, I seem to recall the senate parliamentarian pumping the brakes on much of the Dem agenda before reconciliation votes in Biden’s term. Just couldn’t pass 85% of his promised agenda because of that darn parliamentarian and “the rules.” All we heard from Dems then was how there was nothing they could do to counter the revered senate parliamentarian.

        Last week, there were whispers about the parliamentarian pushing back on some of the massively problematic portions of this bill, and then whoosh, it was gone. Dems didn’t utter a word further. Media completely silent on the matter. What happened? Millionaire senators all want their tax cuts too huh?

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          2·
          19 hours ago

          Republicans also just ignored the parliamentarian when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed during Donald’s first term.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          122·
          1 day ago

          That happened with this bill as well. The Senate Parliamentarian is a non-partisan position, who is charged with the responsibility of verifying the legality of provisions.

          Elizabeth Macdonough, the Senate Parliamentarian since 2012, declared the Republican’s provision to exempt Alaska and Hawaii from the Medicare and SNAP cuts was invalid due to the Byrd rule, for example. Murkowski voted for the bill anyway, because she cares more about pleasing Big Oil than her constituents.

          https://time.com/7296762/big-beautiful-bill-byrd-rule/

          The media wasn’t silent. It was overridden by Trump’s Accusations Auschwitz. You need to watch CSPAN if you want to know what’s happening in the government.

      • LostWanderer@fedia.io
        41·
        1 day ago

        I am aware of their lack of majority and inability to filibuster a reconciliation bill. While these actions seem useful, it is merely born of desperation. Regardless, these are at least steps that can be taken to minimize the massive oncoming harm.

        There is a reason behind this lack of majority though: they’ve failed to energize voters, they’ve let the cult of personality Trump win over reason. They’ve lost seats because of a lack of attention, and complacency. If they hadn’t, we’d be in a very different situation right now.

        The few nominees that had a chance to keep Democrats in control of vital offices, were either sidelined or actively fought against, Zohran Kwame Mamdani is a recent example of a candidate for a Mayoral position that the DNC pit a controversial sex pest Andrew Cuomo against…Even dusting off Bill Clinton to back Andrew, but at least Zohran is still in the running, ATM. I can only hope young candidates like him can help shift the political landscape for the better in the future. If America can endure, at least.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          62·
          1 day ago

          The candidates you want aren’t backed by donors. We need to vote for the progressives that often run in primaries. Take it from a political analyst if you don’t believe me.

          Stop rewarding the people who can afford to reach you in your living room. Research the candidates on your primary ballots and vote in every election.

          • LostWanderer@fedia.io
            4·
            1 day ago

            Oh trust me, I know the reality of what is going on. This is why I vote in every election: local, state, and national because that is what really matters. Change can only happen if we participate in all the elections possible, which I have certainly done regardless of the outcome. As apathy and losing hope is going to let those corporate and ultra wealthy donor backed candidates win.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          11·
          19 hours ago

          There is a reason behind this lack of majority though: they’ve failed to energize voters

          Also, Dems could have abused the reconciliation process in order to pass legislation too, but didn’t.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        12·
        19 hours ago

        First, they have no power due to minority.

        They can filibuster. They could have forced a shutdown. They can abuse reconciliation. They can bully their opponents when they have power. They Congress and the presidency for two years and all they did was sit buy while people got poorer and angrier.

        It’s time to stop making excuses. I want to see a Dem whose willing to talk for two days and piss their pants in order to stop fascism.

  • _stranger_@lemmy.world
    21·
    1 day ago

    I’d be more impressed with him if he tripped on the Senate floor and accidentally gave Ted Cruz a black eye by landing on him.

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    17·
    1 day ago

    Call it what it is: the Onerous Bloated Billionaire Boondoggle.

    Then insert “no” and “not” strategically throughout in order to bring to an end the tax cuts for the grotesquely wealthy (you can leave the ones for ordinary people) and continue funding essential services.

    And insert the requirement that any military or police or patrol force receiving government funds must be fully identifiable while conducting arrest/capture operations.

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      38·
      1 day ago

      Not only is it real, I saw a video that his team cut together of the moment like it was a damn Play of the Game highlight of him “owning” the Republicans. Words cannot express the depths of my hatred for Democratic leadership at this moment. This bill is going to be one of if not the most catastrophic pieces of legislation ever passed and THIS is all their so-called “resistance” amounts to?

      I hate them and their strategy of “Do nothing, give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves, then make it the responsibility of the voters to get rid of them so they don’t have to promise anything or stand for anything.” They gave 'em though rope alright, except they’re not hanging themselves, they’re diving off a cliff and the rope is tied around our waists too.