I'm a socialist and I want Trump to win

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes banning abortion really helps poor women

Democrats could codify abortion access. Why don't they? Have they even tried?

The House passed a bill codifying Roe. Please tell us which ten Republican Senators would have voted for it?

Why won’t Democrats eliminate the filibuster so this wouldn’t be an issue?

Because Manchin and Sinema would lose any leverage they currently have.

And because if they eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe, the Republicans can flip it the other way, as soon as they get total control.

But the Republicans... but Manchin, but Sinema, but the parliamentarian, but but but... all the Democrats have are weakness and excuses.

The Democrats are just an inverse of Republicans. Democrats can't govern and can't legislate and all they do is make excuses. Republicans, they steamroll everything and act shamelessly and with impunity. and guess what, they have no consequences, because the Democrats are too weak to make them face any consequences.

If the tables were turned, could you IMAGINE the Democrats playing as much hardball as the Republicans just did on the debt ceiling?

JFC. Read a book. The US government was intentionally designed to make it almost impossible to make any significant legislative changes. You have to have the President, large majorities in the House and Senate, a majority of the Supreme Court, good faith cooperation from the 50 state governors and legislatures, and even if by some miracle you succeed, the voters will immediately elect the other guys to defund and dismantle what you just did. Republicans appear to be more successful because they don’t try to do anything legislatively. They are a permanent obstructionist party electing and appointing obstructionists. Reforms in the US happen only when a large majority of the public makes a specific change a priority and not a side issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blues need itin their back pocket as a perpetual wedge issue, duh.

So did the fascist Republicans. But oops - they let a crazy Catholic extremist Leonard Leo hire the last few justices and he didn’t get the memo. Now women legally aren’t people and no one wants to vote for the Fascist party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes banning abortion really helps poor women

Democrats could codify abortion access. Why don't they? Have they even tried?

The House passed a bill codifying Roe. Please tell us which ten Republican Senators would have voted for it?

Why won’t Democrats eliminate the filibuster so this wouldn’t be an issue?

Because Manchin and Sinema would lose any leverage they currently have.

And because if they eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe, the Republicans can flip it the other way, as soon as they get total control.

But the Republicans... but Manchin, but Sinema, but the parliamentarian, but but but... all the Democrats have are weakness and excuses.

The Democrats are just an inverse of Republicans. Democrats can't govern and can't legislate and all they do is make excuses. Republicans, they steamroll everything and act shamelessly and with impunity. and guess what, they have no consequences, because the Democrats are too weak to make them face any consequences.

If the tables were turned, could you IMAGINE the Democrats playing as much hardball as the Republicans just did on the debt ceiling?

JFC. Read a book. The US government was intentionally designed to make it almost impossible to make any significant legislative changes. You have to have the President, large majorities in the House and Senate, a majority of the Supreme Court, good faith cooperation from the 50 state governors and legislatures, and even if by some miracle you succeed, the voters will immediately elect the other guys to defund and dismantle what you just did. Republicans appear to be more successful because they don’t try to do anything legislatively. They are a permanent obstructionist party electing and appointing obstructionists. Reforms in the US happen only when a large majority of the public makes a specific change a priority and not a side issue.

PP has zero discussion of the Democrats’ effectiveness or who gets the legislation+government they want. This comment is just middlebrow high school civics and regurgitated MSNBC. Lots of savy people get what they want and they often get it from the Republicans.

Talk about what the Democrats actually do, drop the platitudes, and then you *might* be in a position that justifies the patronizing tone you have above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes banning abortion really helps poor women

Democrats could codify abortion access. Why don't they? Have they even tried?

The House passed a bill codifying Roe. Please tell us which ten Republican Senators would have voted for it?

Why won’t Democrats eliminate the filibuster so this wouldn’t be an issue?

Because Manchin and Sinema would lose any leverage they currently have.

And because if they eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe, the Republicans can flip it the other way, as soon as they get total control.

But the Republicans... but Manchin, but Sinema, but the parliamentarian, but but but... all the Democrats have are weakness and excuses.

The Democrats are just an inverse of Republicans. Democrats can't govern and can't legislate and all they do is make excuses. Republicans, they steamroll everything and act shamelessly and with impunity. and guess what, they have no consequences, because the Democrats are too weak to make them face any consequences.

If the tables were turned, could you IMAGINE the Democrats playing as much hardball as the Republicans just did on the debt ceiling?

JFC. Read a book. The US government was intentionally designed to make it almost impossible to make any significant legislative changes. You have to have the President, large majorities in the House and Senate, a majority of the Supreme Court, good faith cooperation from the 50 state governors and legislatures, and even if by some miracle you succeed, the voters will immediately elect the other guys to defund and dismantle what you just did. Republicans appear to be more successful because they don’t try to do anything legislatively. They are a permanent obstructionist party electing and appointing obstructionists. Reforms in the US happen only when a large majority of the public makes a specific change a priority and not a side issue.

PP has zero discussion of the Democrats’ effectiveness or who gets the legislation+government they want. This comment is just middlebrow high school civics and regurgitated MSNBC. Lots of savy people get what they want and they often get it from the Republicans.

Talk about what the Democrats actually do, drop the platitudes, and then you *might* be in a position that justifies the patronizing tone you have above.

Democrats are responsible for every progressive change in federal laws since 1933, but all of them took a long time to happen because the public had to be persuaded and obstructionists in Congress and the judiciary and the states obstructed every change. Sure, Republican donors get some patronage and privilege from Governors and Senators but those aren’t major legislative changes, that is just more of the same that has gone on forever. It’s just idiotic to ask why Biden hasn’t codified Roe v. Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blues need itin their back pocket as a perpetual wedge issue, duh.

So did the fascist Republicans. But oops - they let a crazy Catholic extremist Leonard Leo hire the last few justices and he didn’t get the memo. Now women legally aren’t people and no one wants to vote for the Fascist party.

How was it worth it to screw over the women of this country to now lose election after election after election? Dumb dumb republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes banning abortion really helps poor women

Democrats could codify abortion access. Why don't they? Have they even tried?

The House passed a bill codifying Roe. Please tell us which ten Republican Senators would have voted for it?

Why won’t Democrats eliminate the filibuster so this wouldn’t be an issue?

Because Manchin and Sinema would lose any leverage they currently have.

And because if they eliminate the filibuster to codify Roe, the Republicans can flip it the other way, as soon as they get total control.

But the Republicans... but Manchin, but Sinema, but the parliamentarian, but but but... all the Democrats have are weakness and excuses.

The Democrats are just an inverse of Republicans. Democrats can't govern and can't legislate and all they do is make excuses. Republicans, they steamroll everything and act shamelessly and with impunity. and guess what, they have no consequences, because the Democrats are too weak to make them face any consequences.

If the tables were turned, could you IMAGINE the Democrats playing as much hardball as the Republicans just did on the debt ceiling?

JFC. Read a book. The US government was intentionally designed to make it almost impossible to make any significant legislative changes. You have to have the President, large majorities in the House and Senate, a majority of the Supreme Court, good faith cooperation from the 50 state governors and legislatures, and even if by some miracle you succeed, the voters will immediately elect the other guys to defund and dismantle what you just did. Republicans appear to be more successful because they don’t try to do anything legislatively. They are a permanent obstructionist party electing and appointing obstructionists. Reforms in the US happen only when a large majority of the public makes a specific change a priority and not a side issue.

PP has zero discussion of the Democrats’ effectiveness or who gets the legislation+government they want. This comment is just middlebrow high school civics and regurgitated MSNBC. Lots of savy people get what they want and they often get it from the Republicans.

Talk about what the Democrats actually do, drop the platitudes, and then you *might* be in a position that justifies the patronizing tone you have above.

Democrats are responsible for every progressive change in federal laws since 1933, but all of them took a long time to happen because the public had to be persuaded and obstructionists in Congress and the judiciary and the states obstructed every change. Sure, Republican donors get some patronage and privilege from Governors and Senators but those aren’t major legislative changes, that is just more of the same that has gone on forever. It’s just idiotic to ask why Biden hasn’t codified Roe v. Wade.

Also Pelosi and House Democrats kicked Trump’s ass for two years but they didn’t try to burn down the country, they actually saved Trump and McConnell from the holes they had dug themselves into. Republicans couldn’t even pass a budget in 2018 when they controlled every branch, but House Democrats came in and cut deals to find the government and then to respond to the pandemic while Republicans spent all their time making up stupid shit to keep their base angry and dysfunctional. Democrats always have to fix Republicans breaking the budget and crashing the economy. You’re welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't seem to understand all the hate thrown at those working minimum wage jobs. Those jobs have to be done by someone. I am not encouraging a 17/hr wage for McDonalds but those wages should somewhat keep up with the standard of living. I made 4.25/hr back in 94 and MW is now 7.25/hr. In 30 years it's gone up $3? That's ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is "hating" on MW jobs. They are just jobs that require no skill set. Go develop a skill and make more money if that is what you want. If people are too lazy to put forth the effort into increasing their income why should the people that do want to pay more for products?

So explain how with a bachelors degree I made 13/hr at Inova hospital in a skilled profession. Or how Ferguson, MO police dept gets paid 18/hr. I am all for lower paid professions to just up and quit and letting the societal chips fall where they may.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't seem to understand all the hate thrown at those working minimum wage jobs. Those jobs have to be done by someone. I am not encouraging a 17/hr wage for McDonalds but those wages should somewhat keep up with the standard of living. I made 4.25/hr back in 94 and MW is now 7.25/hr. In 30 years it's gone up $3? That's ridiculous.

I don't think anyone is "hating" on MW jobs. They are just jobs that require no skill set. Go develop a skill and make more money if that is what you want. If people are too lazy to put forth the effort into increasing their income why should the people that do want to pay more for products?

So explain how with a bachelors degree I made 13/hr at Inova hospital in a skilled profession. Or how Ferguson, MO police dept gets paid 18/hr. I am all for lower paid professions to just up and quit and letting the societal chips fall where they may.

Was your degree in any of the following? Copied from an article in 2022 and understand many won't be in a medical environment but some are:

Lowest-paying college majors

Animal science: $40,500
Criminal justice: $42,300
Criminology: $44,500
Interdisciplinary studies: $44,600
Kinesiology: $45,600
Psychology: $45,700
Graphic design: $46,200
Public health, $48,200
Anthropology: $48,300
Interior design: $48,300

About the police in Ferguson MO, maybe defund the police has taken its toll. Either way the wages you mentioned are way lower than many technical jobs that don't require a degree:

Randomly picked Birmingham AL, lower cost of living than the US Average. Be aware jobs in each area can differ depending on skill set, such as a snow plow driver in TX, FL, NM, AZ probably won't rank very high compared to ME, WI, ND, MT and a few other northern states and an pure AC guy in the northern states won't be in demand as much as someone that can work on heating systems as well (yes I am aware most do both):

Elevator installers and repairers

Median annual wage (2015): $76,650 (around $36 an hour)

Projected job openings (through 2024): 8,000

quite a few more on this list but here is the article:
[url]https://www.al.com/news/2016/05/25_jobs_that_pay_about_59000_a.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I give up pretending to believe that Democrats care about the working class. If they did, they would actually fight even half as hard as Republicans do at screwing the poor.

I don't care about identity politics or woke social issues, I care about economic issues and the environment.

When Democrats win, they cave to Republicans and give them 90% of what they want. We move nine steps to the far right.
When establishment Republicans win, they get 100% of what they want. We move ten steps to the far right.
When Trump wins, there's just chaos. We probably move as far to the right as we would with anyone else in office, but more in a chaotic and absurd way which is at least amusing for the rest of the world. Plus, Trump's redeeming qualities is that he's so stupid and lazy (all he likes to do is whine on Truth Social, golf, and watch Fox News or Newsmax or whatever) that he couldn't even do as much harm as someone like DeSantis could do, because his brain isn't in it, and his administration just gets too mired into scandals.

Face it, the American Empire is collapsing, and I'd rather have it end in farce than tragedy.

If establishment Republicans win they don't get 90% of what they want. They tend to give Democrats some things, and get some of what they want.
Planned Parenthood was never defunded under George W Bush.
You are right about Trump except he primarily cares about tariffs and fighting China, and he got a lot of what he wanted there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Biden never did "vaccine mandates." There are still millions of people running around unvaccinated that are breaking absolutely zero laws. I assume you're talking about the requirement for federal employees to get vaccinated which was a private matter between an employer and employees. (Which strangely Republicans love until it's a matter that affects them...) Every single employee was still free to remain unvaccinated again, without breaking any laws whatsoever, they just weren't free to remain in their job.

Anonymous wrote:

It wasn't just federal workers. He tried to implement this on all businesses with x amount of workers through OSHA, and it was stopped in the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't seem to understand all the hate thrown at those working minimum wage jobs. Those jobs have to be done by someone. I am not encouraging a 17/hr wage for McDonalds but those wages should somewhat keep up with the standard of living. I made 4.25/hr back in 94 and MW is now 7.25/hr. In 30 years it's gone up $3? That's ridiculous.

It's because the real minimum wage is $0. If you raise it too high, companies will just reduce hours and workers.
It's why we have all these automatic checkouts, order in app, expensive machines that can make hundreds of burgers an hour, and restaurants closing earlier.

[Anonymous]

So then do all those people not longer so I g those jobs go on government assistance?

[Anonymous]

Well it takes all sorts to make the world go round, I guess

[Anonymous]

I am planning to vote dem because I am poor and of course interested in more benefits, but sometimes I think how pissed all the progressive fb friends would be if trump won and I am secretly delighted. But of course he would be bad for me and the country so these are just fleeting thoughts

[Anonymous]

Sigh. Here we go again. Divisive themes.. people thinking they're real.

Haven't you people heard of the five D's?

Part of the intent is to generate paranoia and distrust, to help divide the country.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/magazine/fbi-terrorism-terry-albury.html

You all need to stop taking the bait.