Anyone saying “both sides” is a lying right troll, period.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/04/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-secure-the-border/ Biden has the most funding and strictest punishments for the border in us history. Just because Republicans are evil doesn’t mean Democrats aren’t. Both parties are upholding the colonist American government, that has persecuted poc and indigenous peoples especially. Vote for Harris but don’t be fooled into thinking either party will make this country better.
Harris isn’t Biden, though. What’s her position on the border?
It’s a shame you’re getting downvotes.
You’re only pointing out that both parties are incredibly shitty in their own rights, which is something that is undeniably true. Despite that, you still advocate for voting against the orange dictator.
I guess people are missing the point and interpreting your comment as “both sides bad vote neither”
They’re going downvotes because their comment makes no sense. If both parties are exactly the same, why does it matter whom people vote for? Either tell people to stay home, or admit one side is worse. How can you not see that?
No, they’re downvoting because it’s obvious Russian propaganda.
I would agree if they either came from Lemmygrad, or were saying to vote independent/not vote. Maybe I’m being more charitable towards them than most, but their comment reads to me as someone disillusioned who thinks both parties have their own priorities that aren’t the people.
That IS Russian propaganda. “Both sides”.
I’m not trying to be obtuse here, but let me get this straight:
It’s Russian propaganda for someone to say that both of the only two viable parties in the United States election suck?
The way I’ve been categorizing it has been whether the person is trying to encourage others to abstain from voting or voting for a third party. In my opinion, expressing an unpopular opinion is different than trying to get people to waste their important anti-Trump vote.
The way I’ve been categorizing it has been whether the person is trying to encourage others to abstain from voting or voting for a third party.
Sounds like you’re only categorizing it as propaganda if they explicitly call for someone to not vote. “Both sides suck” is essentially the same thing, just without the explicit call to inaction. Not to mention the secondary benefit of painting over the GOPs crimes by making it sound like the dems are just as bad.
It sounds like you think that you can give a party a letter grade, like there’s a linear scale with “bad” on one end and “good” on the other. Parties are going to be better on some issues and worse on others, and of course it varies from politician to politician, too.
This comment is such a damning insight into liberal logic. Incredible.
They really see it in black and white. Blue MAGA indeed.
At what point did they say both parties are exactly the same? They said both parties are evil, and both parties support colonialism. The commenter is evidently disillusioned with the two party system, but they aren’t stupidly saying to not vote Democrat. They’re asserting that neither party will make the country better.
While the idea of better is highly subjective, let’s try being charitable and see it from the commenter’s viewpoint: They sound like a socialist, so let’s assume they want political reform and more legislation to protect the poor or working class. In the current two-party system, everything is gradually shifting right. The Republicans are more brazen about their goals with shit like Project 2025, while the Democrats only have to be less regressive than the Republicans to have a successful platform. The Republicans don’t want reform, and there isn’t any incentive for the Democrats to implement progressive changes (such as implementing RCV, banning gerrymandering, introducing SCOTUS term limits, etc.) when they can be equally successful by simply reverting the damage done by the Republicans. Considering that perspective, they’re correct in saying neither party will make things “better.” The part that isn’t said directly but can be inferred is that one of the parties will make things worse much quicker than the other.
“This is corruption”
“This is lobbying”
No, it’s FUCKING EVIL
Those people are evil enough to put money ahead of the health of other humans
And if you stand by and watch people doing evil things and just say “Well, it’s lobbying” you’re a wretched coward
It’s all of the above, comrade
It’s worse. They put money above the life of other humans. Type 1 diabetics literally cannot live without insulin… Not for very long at least (days at most).
And it’s not a nice death either. Anyone who has seen, first hand, the effects of diabetic ketoacidosis, can confirm.
We see pictures all the time of dafties walking about with signs in the US protesting all sorts of inane, brain-damaged shite
How the fuck are yous not standing outside these evil fuckers’ houses with signs?
“This evil cunt chose to kill diabetics because some evil cunt gave him cash. Let’s hang him from a fucking tree, he’s an absolute cancer on society”
How are yous just sitting back and watching?!?
I’m not doing shit because I’m not an American.
Thank fuck for that. This shit is goddamned embarrassing.
I think my country just passed a law saying that our national healthcare system would cover insulin and diabetic equipment. I don’t have all the details, but the fact that it took this long to do is pretty fucking embarrassing in and of itself.
That being said, at least we got there. The USA can’t even agree to not bankrupt people for having a very manageable condition (with proper medication at least).
Now I am not very versed in US-politics, but in Europe it is pretty normal to vote no or in the best case abstain from voting if you are not part of the government, save for some exceptions. What I find interesting are the 11 people who voted yes across party lines - that may hold more significance than the 193 who didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, it still sounds pretty dumb, but it may not be an “we hate poor-people” issue.
It’s more of a “we get money from pharma”, but they absolutely give no shits about the struggling people in their regions.
This should not be a party line vote issue, but the only platform Republicans have is voting against what the Democrats want.
In a pairlamentary republic, which most states in Europe are, the government (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway, so that it doesn’t matter how the opposition votes. The US is a presidential republic, the government does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Thus, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
As the US is a presidential republic, the government is appointed by the president and, thus does not necessarily have the majority of seats in the pairlament. Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises
This oversimplification isn’t really wrong, but it isn’t correct either. Many very consequential positions are appointed by the president, such as the heads and governing bodies for many government agencies (and the president has official power to instruct agencies to do certain things, however those agencies do have the right to choose not to follow those instructions) but ultimately the president’s power is held in check by the judicial and legislative branches of government which are both elected positions from the states. It’s honestly impressively well thought out that the 3 branches of government rely on each other, and ultimately can’t make significant changes without engaging the other branches, but each is given specific duties that that branch can govern independently
The issue with that system is while there is checks and balances available, One Branch in particular holds the majority of the authority in that balance system, and that being the legislative branch, and when that Branch doesn’t work together you might as well throw that checks and balance system out the window.
We are seeing this issue with the current Supreme Court where it’s very clear that there is visible corruption in the seats, but the executive branch can’t do anything about it because the legislative branch can’t get along long enough to be able to do it. This is exactly why we are warned against having a two-party system in the first place
Our system while on paper seems nice falls apart instantly the second any of the three branches decide they no longer want to do their job, or can’t agree with an outcome,
As I understood, the question was about laws which need to be approved by the legislative power, not executive orders or alike.
Actually I just was told, that what we here in good ol’ Europe call government, the highest officials of the executive power, i.e. MP and ministers, is called administration by you in the US. I’ve corrected that.
Therefore, the government and the pairlament need to elaborate compromises.
This sentence is probably confusing to a lot of Americans, because “the government” in the US includes the legislature, courts, and all executive agencies. I believe what Europeans call a government is what Americans typically call an administration. I’m not quite sure on that, though. An administration is a President and people appointed to executive positions by the President, but I get the impression that, in international usage, “the government” also includes MPs of the ruling party/coalition.
TY, I’ve corrected that. Yes, government in Europe usually means the highest executives, i.e. minister president or chancellor who usually belong to the ruling party, and the ministers as they (actually their appointed secretaries of state) are the ones elaborating laws which are then read and approved by the legislative, the pairlament. In a parlamentary democracy, the head of state, i.e. king or president, usually is not part of the government and only has representative and formal tasks.
In the U S., Democrats will vote yes if it’s something they support, even if it’s proposed by a Republican.
Republicans will shoot down their own bill if they think it will make a Democrat look good.
Republicans will shoot down their own bill if they think it will make a Democrat look good.
like when they voted against the gas price cap after spending months and months whining about gas prices
and the border security bill
it doesn’t need to make logical sense when the majority of your voters are only voting for guns, jesus, and oppressing women
When your party’s entire plan is obstruction so that you can claim the government doesn’t work, you have to obstruct your own stuff when they accidentally work!
No he’s talking about when these pieces of shit literally filibuster their own bill because Democrats agreed with them.
i hope mcconnell has enough grey matter left to feel humiliation, sadness, and anger when he gets booed by republicans for no other reason than trump wills it
Not only do they no longer represent the people they consider most of the population… The Enemy
In terms of the world’s wealth, if you own a million dollars US or more - you’re one of the top 1%, richest people on the planet.
This means ALL of the people in Congress and the Senate are in the top 1%, or being very close to it.
America is ruled by a wealthy ruling class.
if you own a million dollars US or more - you’re one of the top 1%, richest people on the planet.
Is an American with a small house in some hyper-inflated corner of the California real estate market really wealthier than a guy out in Malaysia or Nigeria who owes property that’s 1/10th the price but can pay $2/day for an army of laborers?
I think this puts too much faith in the value of the American dollar relative to the functional value of real estate and human labor trading at a fraction of the price thousands of miles away. Real wealth needs to have some degree of political power behind it. A guy with a $500 rifle who can command a hundred acres of turf and a thousand other people is - in my opinion - substantially wealthier than a guy with a $500,000 condo who owes his continued existence to some Madison Avenue ad agency.
This means ALL of the people in Congress and the Senate are in the top 1%
All the people in Congress and the Senate command votes in one of the wealthiest political bodies on the planet. Having a 1/438 share in the $5T us appropriations budget is worth far more than a piddly million dollars in a savings account.
You’re conflating two things here. You’re taking the top 1% of global wealth and equating that with America and saying it means they’re a wealthy ruling class.
Which I don’t necessarily disagree with in fact, but the premise of your argument is flawed. You need to look at what the top 1% in the US is. The US is heavily skewed towards the top of global wealth in general.
It would be like saying the US is mainly oligarchs and there aren’t people suffering because Americans tend to have more wealth than others. You have to normalize it within the country – or at least against a cost of living index.
In the USA, the threshold for top 1% of net worth is $5.8 million.
Not saying that congress isn’t disproportionately rich, but 1% absolutely does not start at $1 million.
if you have a million you’re one of the richest ON THE PLANET
The planet is bigger than the USA buddy
It certainly is, but when we’re talking about US leadership, global wealth comparisons are irrelevant when talking about the moneyed elites. It needs to be national comparisons.
If you only looked at global wealth metrics, you’d think the US was full of rich people who could afford everything, and it very clearly is not the case. There’s plenty of Americans living in poverty and paycheck to paycheck, even though their wealth would be considered high globally. You have to normalize by cost of living. If someone makes $1m annually but they spend $975k to meet the bare minimum, are they rich?
Yeah, but being richer on paper than some Sudanese warlord doesn’t make it any easier for me to afford a house. Are you seriously gonna argue that we should just ignore the huge differences in the cost of living between countries?
America is ruled by a wealthy ruling class.
Always has been.
Huh, I was going to comment something about how the global top 1% has a lower threshold than that, but it really doesn’t. $1M of wealth would put you in the top 0.7%.
And apparently the top 0.7% hold 45.9% of global wealth. The top 30% hold 97% of wealth.
A quick search shows that $5.8 million is the threshold to be in the top 1% net worth in the US.
You are comparing apples and oranges on purpose by comparing US lawmakers, making laws for the USA, against the world top 1% metric.
Except no. US laws often have global significance. Like wars and resource grabs and stuff. So we should absolutely be using the world as a standard.
The problem there is he said worldwide, not in the US. The searches I’m doing for amount of wealth needed to be in the top 1% worldwide does seem to be around a million dollars. And I mean since a lot of what the US does affects the rest of the world through US companies and the influence the US has you can definitely argue we are led by the 1% who are enacting laws to benefit themselves and the people in their class.
one of the requirements of getting into congress or senate should be that when you are getting in AND out you should donate any sum of assets exceeding a couple millions. then anyone wanting to use government as a means of making money by licking the ass of powerful lobbies. this will not completely eliminate the problem (there will still be people willing to work for lobbies for a couple mil) but will lessen the importance of wealth on politics greatly (along with not allowing donations to presidential candidates or organizations promoting them in anyway).
One side is less corrupt than the other. We’re still stuck with two bad choices. One is extremely bad, the other is just passively bad and tries to work and compromise with the extremely bad side for no discernable reason.
We’re allowed to criticize politicians even if we vote for them. We don’t have to like them just because they’re the only option.
It’s like asking if I’d like to wipe my ass with single ply or sixty grit sandpaper.
Both parties are super corrupt but one wants to force 12 year old rape victims to carry babies to term that they had no choice in the making of, segregate minorities and shove every non-straight cis person back into the closet at best, and the other party sometimes passes legislation that actually helps average people a little. But don’t worry, both parties will whole heartedly support a genocide an ocean away, so at least they can agree on something!
Repubs convincing working-class people that they’re on their side is the biggest con of my lifetime. I don’t know how they managed that, but it’s insanely wrong. Wait, now I remember. It’s all about hating the same people. That’s all that matters.
I’m a school bus driver and we’re unionized (Teamsters) yet most of my co-workers are Trump supporters. We even have a few lesbians and they’re still trumpers. You’re right: the one thing they have in common is that they all really hate black people.
This happened two years ago. They needed to win with a 60 vote margin. It didn’t pass.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/house-insulin-prices/
The bill didn’t need to pass with a 60 vote margin. The House is simple majority, and it passed the house. It’s a little murky to me what happened next, but it seems like the Democrats were arguing that it could be treated as budget reconciliation in the Senate, only needing simple majority. However, the parliamentarian said it’s not budget reconciliation, and so it would have needed 60 votes total in the Senate to get past the filibuster, which it didn’t have.
Then, strangely, the Senate amended the entire title and text of the bill and turned it into a general appropriations bill, which passed both houses and became law, but with the entire original text of the bill struck.
Maybe someone a little more familiar than me with the machinations of government can fill in some of the gaps of what exactly happened and why. My point is, you’re right that it didn’t pass, but neither house of Congress requires a 60 vote margin. The Senate requires 60 votes total for a bill to be filibuster proof.
The Senate has a de facto requirement for a 60 vote margin because Republicans will, without fail, use the filibuster to block any bill that doesn’t sufficiently own the libs. (I was gonna say any bill they don’t like, but they’ll even block their own bills if Democrats decide to support it.)
Ok but who are those 11 that voted correctly?
Apparently it ended up being 12. You can look them up here:
- Don Bacon, Nebraska
- Brian Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
- Andy Harris, Maryland
- Jaime Herrula Beutler, Washington
- Richard Hudson, North Carolina
- John Kakto, New York
- Nicole Malliotakis, New York
- Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
- Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
- Bill Posey, Florida
- Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey
- Frederick Stephen Upton, Michigan
Probably some of ones with diabetes or a family member who has diabetes since Republicans only care about things that affect them personally.
This is from 2022. It’s worth noting that in this vote it was bundled with a Marijuana decriminalization bill, which is probably why the Republicans voted against it.
That soubds like an excuse as they regularly vote against any kind of regulation that would help the average person. They voted against the ACA, remember?
Remember how much they talked about “repeal and replace” but never did even with full party control of all branches of the federal government? I remember that. It was simultaneously scary and hilarious to see that crowd fall apart when it came to actually trying to bring their vague talking points into real legislation and pass them
So they voted against 2 things that would have been good for the working class.
What a piss poor justification. They don’t want to help sick people or get tax money?
Republicans are the fucking worst, prove me wrong
They want everyone poor and pregnant
Vance says, “how can you trust people without kids. They aren’t invested in americas future.”
Mother fucker, my dad will vote for that ticket and I’m telling you he does not give a shit about me or america.
I have to live here with all you evil assholes. Why would I want to bring a kid into this?
We have sitting members of Congress who raped and sex trafficked children. The Supreme Court is bought and paid for.
America is no longer viewed as a respectable nation, just a big bully corporate oligarchy infiltrated by Russian money.
They are so weird, with the crazy shit they’re always talking about.
prove me wrong
Easy. Every democrat is as well
Lololol both sides, GTFO
So do it
Easy.
Didn’t do it.
Keep the price low for medic and increase the tax on sugar.
Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake
diabetes
I did not know that. But I still think it is a good idea.
Diabetes is simply not caused by excess sugar intake. People still keep parroting this misinformation and probably always will.
Being overweight (BMI 25 to 30) doubles your chances of becoming a Type II diabetic. Being obese (BMI 30+) basically guarantees you’ll become a Type II diabetic. Excess sugar intake will make you overweight or obese, so it’s hardly misinformation parroting to say that excess sugar intake causes diabetes, even though a) there are other ways to become overweight besides excess sugar intake, b) it’s possible to get Type II diabetes without being overweight, and c) not all diabetics are Type II.
People with high metabolism and high sugar intake are highly unlikely to develops diabetes. High sugar intake is not a cause of diabetes. Might as well say hamburgers or not walking causes diabetes as those are exactly as accurate as saying sugar causes it.
Sure, that’s fine. Calories in vs calories out.
In the case of type 2 diabetics, obesity is usually a large factor (no pun intended). If you’re able to consume large quantities of sugar and stay in shape (BMI below 25), then you’re probably fine.
Type 2 diabetes is, by definition, insufficient insulin to push blood sugars into the cells of the body. That’s very sugar-related. More body, and more sugars means more insulin is needed. Once it exceeds the ability of the pancreas, you have type 2 diabetes, regardless of BMI or obesity.
What I’m saying is, you don’t need to be obese to have diabetes, even type 2 diabetes.
The existence of type 1 diabetes, however, kind of makes all of this commentary, fairly moot. T1D persons simply cannot live without insulin. So logically, what society is saying by not capping insulin costs is that the lives of type 1 diabetics and the well-being of type 2 diabetics, is less important than money.
And that’s what all this discourse boils down to.
We’ve got a High-Fructose Corn Syrup fan here
Removed by mod
If you don’t want to hear about the politics of one of the most influential countries on Earth, and especially in the Anglosphere, maybe don’t browse a community called “politicalmemes”.
Today, Venezuela had its elections, almost certainly rigged by the autocratic Maduro regime. No one here cares.
Today, Malaysia applied to join the BRICS economic block. No one here cares. I’m not even sure most of the people here know what BRICS is.
Just for fun, sort this community by new and see how long it takes to find a post about the politics of literally any other country. You’ll be there for a while. Nearly everything is about the election they’re gonna have in four months.
The truth is that in a world dominated by American culture, any forum for discussion on the English Internet not explicitly about non-American topics is doomed to be instantly dominated by American discourse. If you want any amount of discussion on other countries, you have to label it as such. Because America is the first world power and to Americans, it is the default.
What I’m saying here is that whenever you see a community that labels itself something like “Political Memes”, you have to mentally prepend that name with “American”. Because this place certainly isn’t “Worldwide Political Memes”. Even the “Memes” part is pushing it, looking at what gets to the top here. It’s mostly just American liberal political opinions shared without a hint of humor or irony.
World news has quite a few threads about rigged Venezuelan elections.
For better or worse, this site has a heavy American presence, and politically minded people are very focused on the election right now. That’s going to translate to a lot of American political memes. If you want to post global political memes, no one’s stopping you, and I’d be quite interested in seeing them
The whole tenure of the Venezuela election discussion has American news media bias slathered all over it. Nobody seems to want to discuss how Maduro’s biggest contender for the Presidency was running the same hyper-Christian, anti-government, private-the-oil-industry shit that is wildly unpopular in the country outside of the bigger cities. Basically the same campaign Anez ran in Bolivia and Bolsanaro ran in Brazil. A Trumpian candidate that the majority simply couldn’t stomach.
Venezuela doesn’t have anything resembling a centrist liberal faction. Its either another term with Maduro or a full-blown reactionary counter-revolution. And there are plenty of people alive in Venezuela today who still remember right-wing military junta that ran the country back in the '50s. Plenty more familiar with the brutal treatment of Haitians, El Salvadorians, and Guyanans. Or, hell, the very ham-fisted Operation Gideon sponsored by the US at the tail end of the Trump administration.
Very hard to get a pro-Western government to win popular support under these conditions.
Yeah I have no disagreement with what you’re saying. This was also true with Russia, where Navalny was hardly left wing. I think it’s moreso the idea of a democratic system versus dictatorship.
This was also true with Russia, where Navalny was hardly left wing.
Even the so-called Communist Party of Russia is a vestigial remnant. That is as much a result of the socio-economic rewiring of the nation after Yeltsin’s coup as any functional dictatorship. People are saturated in Putin-friendly right-wing media in Russia not unlike how Americans have been surrounded by ultra-orthodox conservative news media.
What’s the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship in a nation where mass media and big business are all beholden to a handful of oligarchs?
I am going on a limp here but I recon Lemmy is 80% made up of EU+Anglosphere. And frankly, and forgive my language, barely anyone gives a shit about a rigged vote in Venecuela (“what a surprise, it happened again - for the past 25 years”) and Malaysia (“where’s that even?”) joining BRICS (" do they even get to do anything, they basically hate each other?")
So yeah, while there’s 90% US politics here, you’re free to post memes for other topics, it’s not like its forbidden.
GTFO out of the political memes then
Anyone saying both sides is a clown.
