In short Republicans are going to screw over 23 million poor Americans because they don’t want Democrats getting political credit for helping them during an election season. And because our press is generally broken and afraid of calling a duck a duck, this is going to get dressed up as a genuine concern about wasteful spending by a party that’s long been a huge fan of no shortage of wasteful spending.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Meanwhile Biden wants applause for giving this same discount to one single battleground state…

    49 states lose it, one gets to keep it. And moderate Dems want us to congratulate them for it.

    It’s this kind of strategy that makes “moderate progress” an oxymoron. The result isnt just less progress, it’s a slow backslide because gains never outpace setbacks from conservatives.

    Moderates might not be the ones breaking shit, but when they’re the only other option “not breaking shit” isn’t good enough, they need to actually fix shit.

    If they can’t, maybe that’s a sign 30 years of the neoliberal experiment just shows that it doesn’t work and we need FDR style Dems again…

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Never fails to amaze me how y’all can tie literally any news to how fucked up Democrats are. Like this article is literally about republicans being fucked up and yet somehow that was a prompt to say democrats are.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Really?

        Are you surprised when people criticize the police?

        Do you think we should only criticize the criminals, or that it’s ok to criticize police when they’re not doing enough?

    • FrickAndMortar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I feel like the current establishment wouldn’t allow an FDR-style candidate to succeed, they’re making too much money from protecting the status quo.

      But I’ll still grudgingly support them if Trump is the other option. I’ll vote progressive in my local elections, but as long as we still have a first-to-the-post election process, it’s always the lesser of two evils.

      Isn’t it the case that whoever wins this one, they’ll be the oldest president in US history? Gross.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Just vote in primaries.

        The DNC has to respect the result of primaries.

        So many people ignore primaries then complain they only have two choices.

        • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The DNC has to respect the result of primaries.

          I’m guessing you weren’t around for the 2016 DNC primaries? There is no legal precedent that the results need to be respected and they have outwardly said as much.

          we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right… - DNC attorney Bruce Spiva

          DNC lawyers have argued and continue to argue that the Democratic Party doesn’t owe anyone a fair process. It has every right to disregard its own rules or interpret its rules how it wants because it is a private organization

          source

          Bruce Spiva, representing the DNC, made the argument that would eventually carry the day: … as he explained how the DNC worked, Spiva made a hypothetical argument that the party wasn’t really bound by the votes cast in primaries or caucuses. “The party has the freedom of association to decide how it’s gonna select its representatives to the convention and to the state party,” said Spiva. “Even to define what constitutes evenhandedness and impartiality really would already drag the court well into a political question and a question of how the party runs its own affairs. The party could have favored a candidate. I’ll put it that way.”

          source