• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • What a power move that could be.

    “Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”





  • It’s not even a “gotcha” question. He seems to be clear that his girlfriend’s abortion allowed her to live her best life, and he supported it. So it stands to reason that if he’s voting to restrict abortion, that there must be some line between his girlfriend’s situation, which he supported, and what he votes to restrict. And asking that question is key to understanding his position (if giving him a whole HEAP of benefit-of-the-doubt he doesn’t deserve).

    If he wanted to maintain any kind of consistency, he could have simply said “it’s legal right now, so it was her decision and she was able to get one, and if there is a financial burden in that I should take equal responsibility. I don’t think it should be an option, but I can’t make her choose not to when it isn’t illegal.” And that would be that. Even the “best life” thing could be squared away: “It’s never good when a life that should come into this world never sees daylight, but there are, of course, some options that are available that wouldn’t exist with a child, and she has those options. Many women have children unexpectedly and have rich, fulfilling lives, even if they weren’t what they planned. What I meant by her best life is to say she could continue on the path she found to be best, before she found out she was pregnant.”

    I’m about as pro-choice as it gets and even I can come up with some shitty justifications for his bullshit hypocrisy. So it’s not just that this guy is a hypocrite, he’s also an idiot. If you’re incapable of explaining your actions and voting, you have no business running for any political position.







  • Easter isn’t even about Jesus. At least Christmas has the name, and some manger imagery, and other Christian-based stuff they can stamp on top of Saturnalia, but Easter is still named after the goddess of fertility with all the accompanying fertility and spring parts, from eggs to rabbits, to little sprouting plants and whatnot.

    And I get that the Christians try to associate that spring renewal and rebirth with the resurrection, but I think that’s a pretty big stretch to try to make it work.

    Easter is not about Jesus. Every time somebody says “keep Christ in Christmas” I want to say “then get him out of Easter.”



  • You know when you’re sick and pretty much bed-ridden, and you think “if only I wasn’t sick, I would be working out today and doing such-and-such,” but then as soon as you feel okay again you don’t actually do it or think about it until you physically can’t again?

    I feel like it’s like that. That doesn’t mean you should work out while you’re sick. It just means that we need to remember when we’re well.

    (To be clear, what I’m saying is I get it and you’re right, but regardless we can’t reasonably do it right now. But once we put fascism down, or if it wanes enough to make a reasonable go of it, we absolutely should remember and fix the voting system).



  • The superdelegates, which in 2016 made up about 15% of the delegates, were not elected and are not beholden to any voters, they just chose whichever candidate they wanted, and 604 out of 651 went for Clinton immediately, which meant Bernie started off at an immediate disadvantage.

    There’s this idea that if it’s technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But that’s ridiculous. If someone starts off at a major advantage over their competition, the system is rigged for them. If, in the general election, one candidate started off with 75 electoral votes because some unelected people just decided they liked that candidate, I imagine we would call that system rigged in favor of that candidate (even if it is technically possible for their opponent to win). Not only that, but starting off at such a deficit for what would already have been considered a close race is likely to make those who might have voted for Bernie just not bother showing up.

    So yes, I’d say the primary was rigged against Bernie. And the Democrats seem to agree, because they got rid of superdelegates for the initial vote, because everyone was pissed.