The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only one to win the Democratic primaries, at least.
The only person to get that point in this century was Obama, and only in 2008.
The only one to win the Democratic primaries, at least.
Since then, his signature legislation has failed to pass as intended, he’s broken a strike, he’s supported a genocide, he’s moved to the right on immigration, and he’s claimed to have defeated Medicare. He’s alienated his base and demonstrated that people who were fretting about his age might have been on to something after all.
He beat Trump in a nail-biting squeaker of a contest in 2020, and centrists have been pretending he’s invincible ever since.
I think Godwin’s Law died out around the time the actual Nazis came back.
Which is why you chose to call someone to your left a nazi.
It’s actually sort of difficult to talk about some elements of politics and media in the present day without referring to the historical parallels, and one particular parallel is absolutely significantly more parallel than the others.
You just wanted to call me a fucking nazi.
You can’t have failed to notice the “bOtH sIdEs” strawman that lemmy’s centrists throw around.
For people who mock “both sides”-ism even when it isn’t present, democrats sure love to use “both sides” as a justification for overlooking Biden’s flaws.
The only individual characteristic that matters is incumbency,
The incumbent lost in 2020. There may be other factors.
Conversation’s over. Godwin.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/WildingDNC.pdf
Here’s your fucking link. Now don’t read it, immediately dismiss it and demand even more granular proof of what I initially said.
She’s not even there no more. She is not “the DNC”.
Considering that the entire reason they were in court revolved arounf the 2016 election, her corruption was going to be central. The party argued that their charter didn’t have to be followed, and the judge agreed and dismissed the case. Which you already know and are ignoring in bad faith now that it’s convenient to do so for the centrist wing of the party.
Your wing of the party. If every bad faith centrist who claims they voted for Sanders in the primary actually had, Sanders would have won both the primaries and the general.
You’re just a Republican here to tell us no matter what Biden is the only option besides trump?
This is lemmy, yes.
As to ‘its just a bad debate’ - it is the worst presidential debate in modern history. That’s a tough thing to climb out from.
Not to mention, there’s only 2 debates. Best Biden can do now is 1-1.
It would do even more harm if people were more aware of how China is able to make things so inexpensively. Amazon and Walmart have standardized obfuscating slave labor.
And Etsy has turned obfuscating slave labor into a side hustle. What bleak times we inhabit.
What is wrong with the Democrats, it’s bizarre.
The republican-adjacent wing of the party has the candidate they want, and they’re so unforgivably pigheaded that they would rather lose democracy forever than change.
Able? Not with the current House. Willing? Also no, progressives are calling for it.
You still have no evidence. If you did, you would have presented it instead of being a self-admitted troll.
Your accusations that I’m a maga bot? You have no evidence of anyone being a maga bot.
For their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter’s promise of “impartiality and evenhandedness” as a mere political promise——political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts. The Court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC’s governing principles. While it may be true in the abstract that the DNC has the right to have its delegates “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DE 54, at 36:22-24, the DNC, through its charter, has committed itself to a higher principle.
That “cigars” quote was from the DNC’s legal counsel, acting as the party’s representative in court. This was after the party had already engaged in fuckery and were arguing in court that they should get away with it.
That’s the party’s position regarding its charter when it’s convenient to do so, which is to say, when they want to fuck over a progressive. But when there’s a centrist that the party wants to hang on to, then the charter was brought down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai.
Fascinating. It sounds like your theory is that the Democrats floated the public option and the BBBA, just so they could go through an elaborate ruse following by killing it on purpose after months of work and preparation, only to introduce second weakened iterations of both of them (the ACA and IRA) which still did massive amounts for the country, and they went through all that just so their second version could… look wimpier by comparison to the initial version they shot down on purpose, maybe? IDK.
I don’t consider it implausible that politicians would break their promises, no. I voted for the public option. I voted for Obama because his plan had a public option and no individual mandate. What we got passed by reconciliation along party lines. It had the individual mandate. It had no public option. It passed along party lines in reconciliation, meaning that Democrats abandoned so much to get the support of Republicans, who didn’t vote for it anyway. It had a medicaid expansion that was optional, so my state didn’t accept it. Biden said he was going to revisit the public option. To my complete lack of surprise, he didn’t.
I voted against Trump in 2020, since after the ACA I didn’t believe a promise from a Democratic candidate. Turns out, my distrust was founded. BBB was a bill of goods designed to be abandoned, just like the public option. They put on a hell of a show abandoning it, but at the end of the day, there were enough no votes to kill it, just like with the public option. In both cases, it died without Republicans touching it.
The wimpy remaining bills are something, yes, but the primary function seems to be something for centrists to point at when they’re ordering progressives to be happy with their presidents’ signature failures.
I wouldn’t look at that as a “well I guess there’s no difference between the two, and the lack of progress is DEFINITELY the Democrats’ fault, citation trust me bro” situation.
I have never said both parties are the same, and i provided examples of Democrats finding the votes to kill progressive legislation.
The half a trillion dollars worth of student loan forgiveness passed.
A few things about this, It didn’t pass. It never came to a vote. It was an executive order. Centrists didn’t want it. Biden, in the only surprise of his presidency so far, listened to progressives on student loans, but only after years of pressure. Centrists insisted his hands were tied until he signed it. And we’ve discussed this before. I consider student loans to be the high point of the Biden presidency. But if it were before the Senate and not an executive order, Manchin would have killed it.
And I just got to the paragraph where you call me Goebbels. Conversation’s over. Godwin.
You’re upset that I’m accusing you of lying, then accusing me of “loving genocide” which is a lie.
Read it again. I said you want the people you lie about to love genocide. Though since you’ve repeatedly lied about ignoring me, lied about blocking me, and lied about people to your left being maga bots, I have reason to doubt when you say you don’t love genocide.
Then antagonizing me to block you.
I was wondering because generally when you get tired of calling me a trumpist because I don’t support genocide, you make a big show of ignoring/blocking me only to demonstrate that it’s yet another lie the following day. I’m wondering when you clock out, basically.
Deciding in smoke filled rooms involves ignoring the charter entirely. Which the party argued in court that they could do. But they can’t now.
If you ever have a thought that isn’t a Clinton/Biden/Netanyahu talking point, let me know.