In the face of ‘eradication’, one trans activist is preparing to fight – and she’s sick of silence and neglect from her supposed allies. Raquel Willis tells Io Dodds why Republican bathroom bans are everybody’s problem
That’s what I saw in my inbox, and that’s the comment I replied to. Maybe don’t go off half baked if you want to avoid this scenario? Put the whole thought down or add more context from the beginning.
I’m beginning to perceive this as low effort trolling/point scoring without an argument behind it. I cited a reference and explained the mental slip meaning houses (Senate, House, Presidency, and Supreme Court) and the parallel answer of fourth branch is right there - you’re being very obtuse or didn’t read the link:
While the term ‘fourth estate’ is used to emphasize the independence of the press, the fourth branch suggests that the press is not independent of the government. The concept of the news media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the media’s responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of democracy.
And given recent events, it fits:
- WaPo doesn’t endorseanyone, despite decades of precedent and staff objections
- LA Times refuses to endorse, despite decades of precedent and staff objections
- NYT refuses to endorse, despite decades of precedent and staff objections
That’s what I saw in my inbox, and that’s the comment I replied to. Maybe don’t go off half baked if you want to avoid this scenario? Put the whole thought down or add more context from the beginning.
You expect everyone on lemmy to stop using the edit button just to cater to you? This isn’t an editorial or an essay. There’s no problem with going back and adding to a comment. Maybe don’t lie about people changing their posts after you respond just because you can’t be bothered to read more than your inbox.
I’m beginning to perceive this as low effort trolling/point scoring without an argument behind it. I cited a reference and explained the mental slip meaning houses (Senate, House, Presidency, and Supreme Court) and the parallel answer of fourth branch is right there - you’re being very obtuse or didn’t read the link
I was trying to get you to just state your argument in one place because I can’t see more than one comment while replying and your statement was changing because of your “mental slip”.
So what if Democrats spent a billion to stop fascism. What price do you put on stopping fascism? Due to inflation the cost of everything has gone up. Every year campaign spending is more than the previous year. Trump has foreign bot farms, billionaires that don’t want to be taxed by democrats and the republican propaganda machine campaigning for him for free. As long as this is true, democrats will have to spend more campaigning.
Senate only lost 4 seats same as it was 2019-2021. There have been much bigger swings in the past and it goes back and forth pretty consistently. This was the predicted outcome just based on history.
Democrats gained seats in the house this election and even though they didn’t get a majority, republicans were already struggling to get anything passed in the house before they lost seats this election. So democrats made it even harder for republicans with their campaign.
The Supreme Court wasn’t lost to republicans as a result of the democrats campaign. It was lost because of the timing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death so either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you are intentionally lying about democrats losing the Supreme Court as a result of their campaign.
The only reason democrats lost the “fourth branch” is because news media/press is owned by billionaires and democrats campaigned on increasing corporate taxes, taxing billionaires and capital gains tax. All of which the wealthy class were fighting the entire time. Maybe you feel democrats should win over the “fourth branch” by giving billionaires more tax cuts like the republicans did.
So to summarize:
Senate-traded 4 seats the expected outcome based on history.
House of reps-net gain in seats
Supreme Court-has nothing to do with the 2024 campaign
“Fourth branch”-winning this means giving more tax cuts to the rich. Why would you want that?
You expect everyone on lemmy to stop using the edit button just to cater to you? This isn’t an editorial or an essay. There’s no problem with going back and adding to a comment.
Fundamentally disagree. Edit for typos or reword an existing sentence clarity, yes. Change the substance of a comment and not declare it, no. I left in my slip of house/branch because it was a genuine mistake. You’re playing point scoring and trying to twist that as me wriggling out of an error.
Maybe don’t lie about people changing their posts after you respond just because you can’t be bothered to read more than your inbox.
Like I said, the snippy response was the comment as it stood when I responded. You went back and changed it, and fortunately for you there’s no log history, just the ‘edited’ tag.
So what if Democrats spent a billion to stop fascism. What price do you put on stopping fascism? Due to inflation the cost of everything has gone up. Every year campaign spending is more than the previous year. Trump has foreign bot farms, billionaires that don’t want to be taxed by democrats and the republican propaganda machine campaigning for him for free. As long as this is true, democrats will have to spend more campaigning.
I’d rather we not play the loosing game of money = speech. You cannot outflank the right on immigration via border ‘crackdowns’ just as we average voters cannot outspend the donor class. Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Money. Because otherwise it’s the government of the highest bidder; Elon and crew just bought themselves seats at the table. Are you seriously arguing for autocratic oligopoly???
republicans were already struggling to get anything passed in the house before they lost seats this election.
No, they’ve had some very public infighting between the ‘old guard’ Republicans and the new MAGAs turning over the applecart. Dems rolled over on trans issues (like the OOP) military spending, curtailing Israel in Palestine, Supreme Court reform, deficit limits, etc etc
So democrats made it even harder for republicans with their campaign.
Excuse me if I’m not excited about the ‘resistance’ coming from DC given their track record the last time Trump was in office, when he didn’t have unified government. Peeling off a few house seats should not be the victory lap you’re trying to spin this as, when the party shit on voters by gaslighting them about reality and got destroyed for it. The leadership has failed, and they are still clutching onto power whilst kicking out the ladder beneath them
The Supreme Court wasn’t lost to republicans as a result of the democrats campaign. It was lost because of the timing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death so either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you are intentionally lying about democrats losing the Supreme Court as a result of their campaign.
- Biden “I’m considering expanding the court” does nothing
- Dems rolling over on approving Barrett after Ginsburg. Mitch played realpolitik and blocked Garland with a much longer time before the election, but while Dems complained they still played ball. There were multiple other plays aside from confirmation hearing that were not explored
The only reason democrats lost the “fourth branch” is because news media/press is owned by billionaires and democrats campaigned on increasing corporate taxes, taxing billionaires and capital gains tax. All of which the wealthy class were fighting the entire time. Maybe you feel democrats should win over the “fourth branch” by giving billionaires more tax cuts like the republicans did.
We’ve always had a partisan press. What rolled backs the worst excesses of the original “America First” Hearst era yellow journalism was holding him to account for his tripe and editorializing reality - and when he broke from the entrenched corruption of Tammany Hall and became hostile to FDR. The Presidency is called the ‘bully pulpit’ for a reason, milquetoast neoliberalism is farrrr to comfortable with Fox News. I wonder why?
“Fourth branch”-winning this means giving more tax cuts to the rich. Why would you want that?
Ahh yes anyone who disagree must clearly be a disguised simp for billionaires. No possible way they might want a robust press freed from billionaire owners by enforcing anti-trust or walling off journalism from the profit motive that degrades public trust. Yessir you got me.
Fundamentally disagree. Edit for typos or reword an existing sentence clarity, yes. Change the substance of a comment and not declare it, no. I left in my slip of house/branch because it was a genuine mistake. You’re playing point scoring and trying to twist that as me wriggling out of an error.
What I added changed the argument in no way whatsoever. I was upfront about the changes. I don’t know why you are clutching your pearls about it.
Like I said, the snippy response was the comment as it stood when I responded. You went back and changed it, and fortunately for you there’s no log history, just the ‘edited’ tag.
Again, what I added changed nothing. You seem to be doubling down after making a fool of yourself.
I’d rather we not play the loosing game of money = speech. You cannot outflank the right on immigration via border ‘crackdowns’ just as we average voters cannot outspend the donor class. Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Money. Because otherwise it’s the government of the highest bidder; Elon and crew just bought themselves seats at the table. Are you seriously arguing for autocratic oligopoly???
To “ Get money out of politics, legislate away Citizens United, or at the very minimum curtail SuperPACs and Dark Money” we have to win enough elections to do that. You can’t change shit with the GOP in office. Why does that need to be explained to you? You can’t possibly be arguing in good faith if I have to tell you that…
Citizens united is already in place. To undo it we have to win elections with it in place. Again that shouldn’t need to be explained.
No, they’ve had some very public infighting between the ‘old guard’ Republicans and the new MAGAs turning over the applecart. Dems rolled over on trans issues (like the OOP) military spending, curtailing Israel in Palestine, Supreme Court reform, deficit limits, etc etc
Yeah that’s how a thin majority works. There are always a few people that vote against their party for both democrats and republicans. If democrats spent less on campaigning it could’ve been worse. Republicans could have a super majority and really do damage. But you’re too short sighted to see that.
Excuse me if I’m not excited about the ‘resistance’ coming from DC given their track record the last time Trump was in office, when he didn’t have unified government.
What is this vague statement supposed to mean. What track record?
Peeling off a few house seats should not be the victory lap you’re trying to spin this as, when the party shit on voters by gaslighting them about reality and got destroyed for it.
Wtf are you babbling about? How did they “shit on voters by gaslighting them about reality”? How did they “get destroyed”? You sound like you repeating things you’ve heard without understanding them enough to articulate what they mean.
The leadership has failed, and they are still clutching onto power whilst kicking out the ladder beneath them.
Again, you aren’t making any sense. Democrats lost 1 election. It was a big one because of Trump and his fascist plans. But Biden inherited a weak economy and a pandemic. Voters have a short memory so we knew going it to it the odds were against democrats. Republicans were projected to win just based on history. You’re having a meltdown because democrats didn’t win when the odds were against them and suggesting they should’ve put in less effort by spending less.
- Biden “I’m considering expanding the court” does nothing.
He can’t do it without enough votes in senate. Again you’re showing you don’t know what you’re talking about by blaming democrats for not doing something that isn’t possible.
Dems rolling over on approving Barrett after Ginsburg.
Republicans controlled senate at this time. Again you’re showing you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mitch played realpolitik and blocked Garland with a much longer time before the election, but while Dems complained they still played ball.
You admit Mitch blocked while in the same breath blaming democrats for Mitch’s actions. There is no way you are arguing in good faith. This has to be trolling.
There were multiple other plays aside from confirmation hearing that were not explored.
Yeah so many other plays that you can’t mention because they don’t exist. If there were other viable options democrats would’ve tried them because democrats want that seat in the SC. Or are you pushing some conspiracy theory that democrats wanted republicans to get that seat in the SC? If so, put down the koolaid.
Ahh yes anyone who disagree must clearly be a disguised simp for billionaires. No possible way they might want a robust press freed from billionaire owners by enforcing anti-trust or walling off journalism from the profit motive that degrades public trust. Yessir you got me.
You’re the one blaming democrats for losing the favor of billionaire media owners by trying to tax them…
