The Thread of Democrats

[Cunt]

This is a thread called...um...

I am just celebrating Democrats here.

If you can't find Farty Swalwell, banging a spy called Fang Fang funny, and instead take it personally, well, that sounds like a personal problem.

[Hermit]

Yes, that 'believeallwomen' hashtag sure was stupid.

It is what right wing activists have turned the 'believewomen' hashtag into in order to ridicule it.

Believe all women is a controversial alternative phrasing of the expression in question since the slogan "believe all women". Monica Hesse, in The Washington Post, argues that the slogan has always been "believe women," and that the "believe all women" variant is "a bit of grammatical gaslighting," a straw man invented by critics so that it could be attacked, and that this alternative slogan, in contrast with "Believe women", «is rigid, sweeping, and leaves little room for nuance»

[Cunt]

YES!

Gaslighting. The term used that way is indeed.

But Tara Reade was still treated differently, by a deferential and respectful media.

I like how Mr. Malice calls them 'Corporate Media'. It's a good, constant reminder.

I like 'Friends of Maxwell', but it's a bit obscure for most folks.

[Hermit]

But Tara Reade was still treated differently, by a deferential and respectful media.

Tara Reade turned out to be a perjurer and a serial liar. The media did her a service by no longer paying any attention to her. This favour was not granted intentionally. It was a byproduct of her lies not being newsworthy.

[Joe]

This is a thread called...um...

I am just celebrating Democrats here.

If you can't find Farty Swalwell, banging a spy called Fang Fang funny, and instead take it personally, well, that sounds like a personal problem.

Uh-huh, I've heard that line before. You're the guy obsessing over a minor Democrat's little scandal from last year.

You sure hate Democrats.

[Cunt]

If Ex-vice-president Biden does anything new and funny, we can bring that here too.

[L'Emmerdeur]

If Ex-vice-president Biden does anything new and funny, we can bring that here too.

That's really cute. So as far as you're concerned, Trump is the Real President and Biden is in reality merely an 'ex-vice-president' who's posing illegitimately as the President of the United States, eh? Good for you. Q must be so very proud of you.

[Cunt]

Nah, I think it's 'President Harris' (as Biden himself has said) and he is just a placeholder.

But you go ahead and stay the course, Lemmy. Run right along with the establishment!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Thanks for that clarification. It's hard to keep track of which specific loony-tunes bullshit you're parroting in any given post.

[JimC]

Thanks for that clarification. It's hard to keep track of which specific loony-tunes bullshit you're parroting in any given post.

Trying to makes my brain hurt...

[Joe]

Thanks for that clarification. It's hard to keep track of which specific loony-tunes bullshit you're parroting in any given post.

Trying to makes my brain hurt...

I've pretty much given up. Middle school was so long ago I just can't recapture the mindset.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Might as well go in this thread. It's not as if Republicans don't already know this. The development of US political parties over the past half century or so has included the sifting of 'moderates' into the party that has become solidly identified with their political position. While there used to be a significant sprinkling of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, such figures are almost extinct now. This makes the failure of 'bipartisanship' inevitable. I think the author is correct when he says the US had edged into a quasi-parliamentary system.

'"Bipartisanship" Is Dead in Washington. That's Fine.'

Washington this week has been obsessed with the hunt for the elusive thing known as “bipartisanship.” Is there a bipartisan deal to be had on China? On Infrastructure? When Senate Republicans filibustered the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol—physical security surely being a bipartisan concern if there ever was one—our own Playbook moaned that “Dreams of a bipartisan, independent investigation into the Capitol insurrection are probably dashed for good.”

What dreams were those? Joe Biden ran for president as the “apostle of bipartisanship,” as the New York Times put it, and ever since has been romancing Republicans at the White House hoping to convert them. But the two parties seem unable or unwilling to agree on anything substantive. The $1.9 trillion pandemic measure that Congress passed, and Biden signed, collected not a single Republican vote in either chamber. Today, Republicans and Democrats remain at partisan loggerheads over the “infrastructure” bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has stretched his 5-foot, 9-inch frame as far as it can extend to block H.R. 1, the bill that would expand voting rights.

...

Paging through American history textbooks, it’s easy to find examples of bipartisanship we regret. The internment of citizens of Japanese descent? Bipartisan. The Patriot Act and the Iraq War? Bipartisan. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? The Defense of Marriage Act? The ultracomplicated tax code? President Bill Clinton’s crime bill? All bipartisan to the max. If only there had been a little less cooperation between the parties back then, and a little more critical examination of what they were actually voting on. Proponents of Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and other radical measures will tell you that these measures never would have passed had legislators worshiped the grail of bipartisanship.

...

To anyone who has watched Washington change over the years, it’s clear the bipartisan credo represents a nostalgia for a time—which started fading in the late 1960s—when what passed for bipartisanship was extreme partisanship by another name. Back then, the two parties still embraced more ideological diversity within their ranks: There were liberal Republicans like John Lindsay, whom political taxonomists would now peg for a Democrat (he eventually became one) and conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond, who acted like a Republican (he eventually became one, too). The jockeying for votes in those days created an illusion of Republicans and Democrats working together, when what was often happening was the natural liberals from both parties ganging up on the natural conservatives on the Hill.

But by the 1970s, politicians were aggressively sorting themselves into the party closest to their position, ending easy accommodation with the “other side.” It’s not just from a failure of character that 1960s-style bipartisanship doesn’t exist today: It can’t exist. All the liberals have deposited themselves into the Democratic Party, and all conservatives are Republicans. The species that made those “bipartisan” deals is as extinct as the ivory-billed woodpecker. Call it a cryptozoological search.

None of this analysis is to suggest that the two parties should never work with one another to pass laws. But as news consumers and voters, we need to remember that the halo that reporters and pundits, and politicians themselves, hoist over “bipartisanship” is a shuck. And when it isn’t a shuck, it’s a rhetorical cudgel that politicians use to brand themselves as noble and reasonable while slamming their opponents as petty and vindictive.

Despite their moans of protests about the end of bipartisanship, members of Congress understand what’s going on: Old-school accommodation is mostly dead, and Congress has evolved into a defacto parliamentary system in which the majority takes all. The best way to pass legislation is to win more seats. If you believe in majority rule, forget about making converts: Assemble a majority and start ruling with it.

[Tero]

That socialist Reich brings this up! Good thing it was not Veterans' day!

Robert Reich
@RBReich
Even if the Pentagon budget were cut in half, the United States would still outspend China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

This Memorial Day, remember...the last thing we need is a bigger military budget.
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1399416383033667587
(3 minute video)

[Sean Hayden]

I have no problem accepting the US is a huge spender in this area. But how good are the numbers for other countries? It's hard to believe straightforward comparisons are possible given the nature of what's being funded.

[Cunt]

https://babylonbee.com/news/compromise- ... journalist

...Progressive Chicagoans expressed deep concern over the Mayor’s backtracking, arguing the compromise may prove to be a slippery slope towards speaking to one-fourth black or even Korean journalists. Activists warned that a loss of strict racial standards could jeopardize all the wonderful progress the city had made on gun violence and allowing children to go to school.