all 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 69 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Duh! All the recent losses to Progressives finally clue you in?!?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    Raises the question as to why human decency is considered progressive….

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Aha! Excellent question! The reason why human decency is considered evil is very simple.

    When Jesus escaped the cross and purged everyone who tried to kill him at Golgotha, he explained that forgiveness, mercy, and humility are weaknesses of the human condition. If you feel someone has crossed you, then you are obligated by the LORD to get revenge, or you would be committing the mortal sin of mercy.

    Observe Figure A down below. The evil ones who perverted Christ's message favor the straight cross, since they believe that he actually wanted humans to be humble, forgiving, and weak. The true followers use this bent ends variant, which demonstrates how Christ changed his mind after the Romans failed to kill him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    Is this a shitpost? I can't find any evidence of any of this. Is this like some fringe version of Christianity like the Rosicrucians or something?

    I feel like I'm missing a joke.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    There’s a massive silent /s at the end of that. It’s pointing out how warped conservative culture Christian ideology is, that they’re preaching the exact opposite of what Jesus actually taught, under a nazi symbol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    As far as this position on the issues, I'm pretty sure this was already a majority opinion anyway?

    That kind of thing - polling on issues that actually fucking matter to everyone - is exactly why the Republicans work so hard to try to paint the Democratic Party as trying to make everyone transgender and have men competing in every single K-12 female sports event....

    Suddenly we are arguing over "bathroom bills" and "men in women's sports" instead of about things on which there is majority support, but which the oligarchs oppose.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    men competing in every single K-12 female sports event

    I kind of do want this, though? Like, not every event, but every once in a while let's have a soccer match of a team of 6 year old girls versus a couple of middle-aged men. Just to see what happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Dem voters have been to the left of Dem leadership for at least a couple of decades now. But the big corporate donors don't want policies that help people. They want neocon subjugation.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Of COURSE! We MUST try to get MAGA Votes if we Want to WIN!

    -Democrat Strategists!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Don't worry, theres still plenty of time for the democratic party/DNC to fuck everything up in favor of the republicans-from-40-years-ago democrats.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago

    THESE are the Things that Democrat Voters WANT and will WILLINGLY vote for? Well I GUESS we have NO Choice but to TRY and Court MAGA votes!

    -James Carville!

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I am sure they just mean democratic voters not actual democratic candidates.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    It should just be the progressive party. I'm so done with the bullshit that changes nothing of the status quo that everyone is unhappy with.

    This is the best time for it to be implemented. The next president will have the biggest opportunity to make huge sweeping disruptive changes. I just don't think the democrats have the balls to force it like they will be able to with the sweep.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    Prosecuting the facsists and making sure this crap can't happen again is essential. Focus on that motherfuckers.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Essential as a policy or essential as a campaigning slogan?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Because nothing could be more objectively and obviously true

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Wait are they seriously listening finally?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    After 30+ years, Democrats are finally showing some recovery from the BS that was neoliberalism.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I can't access this site because of a Datadome block.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    I'll give you the first paragraph of each section.

    Introduction

    Liberal Democrats now make up a clear majority of their party ​and view universal healthcare, greater abortion access and higher taxes on the rich as essential political positions, underscoring how Democrats have moved ‌leftward in recent years, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

    String of Victories

    Insurgent left-wing candidates this year have racked up a string of ​primary victories over more centrist Democrats, many of whom were backed by the party establishment. They have gone beyond New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's election last year in a deeply liberal city to vie for office in more politically divided states.

    Divisions on Israel

    Only ⁠16% of Democrats support military and economic support for Israel, while 57% oppose it, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. Among liberal Democrats, more than 80% said reducing or eliminating that support was either important or essential for any liberal; only 18% ​said it was not important.

    And this is the poll of interest:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Yeah they see it, but the standard Democratic politician will not do shit about it. Vote for the Progressives.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet!!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    It's a cold war between the rich and the middle class (the poor are already casualties). You can't negotiate a truce with them because they're winning. It's way passed time to fight back so if we keep pulling our punches we'll end up in a prison planet.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    While I'm in favor of increasing taxes on the rich if given the option, it's always felt like such a bandaid measure. Our society should be structured in a way that doesn't produce these people in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah but taxing the hell out of them helps with lowering production of them. The highest bracket tax rates used to be >90%

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'm aware of this. The problem I have is that it basically means they are subsidizing large segments of our economy, making us more dependent on them. More dependence gives them more leverage, and eventually only continues this back and forth we have now.

    I still support it, as I said previously. But it's never going to solve the root problems, which are executives and corporations as institutions. They need to be supplanted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I think it would mostly balance out though, for individuals. Right now, their greed is boundless because they keep practically all profit made so nothing mitigates their desire for more, more, more.

    But when they know they only get to keep 8% of what they make beyond a certain point, they won't have as much motivation to keep squeezing more and more out of their customers (or whatever the money source is). As the tax rate increases with income, an equilibrium would be approached where they wouldn't consider it worth the effort to keep pushing for more, knowing there's a functional limit to just how much wealth they can accumulate after that point.

    I agree with you that this only addresses part of the problem. Another important legislative step is to take back control over corporations and forbid monopolies again! We used to, but the antitrust and other laws controlling their growth and power have been effectivley dismantled and now we're in a new gilded age.

    Those two things could be implemented quickly, along with eliminating some of the more egregious tax loopholes. Then over time reform (or replace) the whole tax code (enormous task).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I don't care how we get there, just fucking get us there. The destination requires empathy to find it, so the monsters should mostly get lost trying to follow the old paths.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Until they actually have to make something that works, then it’s just watered down garbage that caters to companies.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    That's what I've been arguing for years, those on the left that want change to happen, have to change the democratic party from within. It's not just the best way, it's the only way.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago

    fuck them. they see the left as gullible. anyone that is coming to this realization now need to be out of the job right fucking now. they will make claims that they will fight for progressive causes up until they get elected.

  • source
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (13 children)

    That's great! Just keep your hands off firearms for law abiding citizens and you'll have my vote.

    Edit: since some users here are confused on politics... In the U.S. there are such things as liberal gun owners. Come shooting with us sometime and you can see why we hate fascism.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Man, if we convince every single issue gun rights voter that the left is actually pro gun - shit, we could go bring justice to the pedophiles by next week. Fuck voting at that point.

    Seriously though. We literally have our own version of the NRA on the left, the SRA. Any self respecting leftist owns at least one firearm.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Its a conservative supreme court, you don't have to be a single issue voter. Progressive candidates can try to make promises to get elected, but no ones going to be able to take your guns away. Even a progressive court wouldn't be able to do that much. A law for background checks or waiting periods on purchases might be upheld by a progressive court, but the right ultimately won't be infringed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago* (9 children)

    That's hilarious coming from a Canadian where it's difficult to get or even keep anything other than a pellet gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    If your guns – that you presumably virtually never need to use – are such a ridiculously high priority to you, then your priorities are seriously out of whack. Especially since nobody's trying to take them from you unless you're mentally unfit to have them. Or is that the real reason for your "concern?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Hobbyists don't need guns at all. And, in order to preserve game species for future generations, hunters should be limited to using Stone Age bows with flint-tipped arrows, spears from the same era, and (in a bow to modernity) Louisville Sluggers, but only for bears over 1/4 of a ton.

    As for self-defense, do something useful like learning situational awareness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Wow, tell us you don't understand herd management at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

    Can't rebut my argument (or won't, which may be telling), so you lamely try to move the goalposts. Hard to take you seriously after that. What happened in those places isn't going to happen here anytime soon (at least not with regard to guns). There are plenty of other much more pressing issues that should be higher in your priory list.

    BTW in case you didn't notice, I'm not the person you were talking to a couple comments back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    anytime soon

    See, it's saying things like that that's making people like them skeptical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Riiggghhhhttttt. Ignoring the fact that the distant future is almost completely unpredictable makes people less skeptical. Make sense.

    🙄

    For those of us grounded in reality, the likelihood of gun ownership being forbidden anytime in the foreseeable future – especially when there are so many millions of people out there with them already – is extremely unlikely.

    At the risk of sounding like a "think of the children" argument (which, ironically, that side of the political spectrum loves to misuse), I don't believe anyone sane wants mentally unfit people to have access to guns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -10 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    How about we figure out how to pay down our debt and then we can attack healthcare

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    People like you would go after pennies in the name of downplaying the debt. There are bigger fish to fry in the budget than not having universal healthcare. Let's look at the oil subsidies, telecom subsidies, in fact give every single one a good glance over. I'm certain we can save enough billions to pay for healthcare multiple times over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, Zohran Mamdani should focus on balancing the books before he opens the government communism store.

    Oh, he did? And he fixed the potholes? And did it quicker using the machines of the government rather than corporate bureaucracy? And he wants me to earn more money each year, pay less to live, and cares about me as a person?

    Well, all that sounds great in theory, but this billionaire said that we still need to pay off our debts, and billionaires know a thing or two about money!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    They know about exploitation to get money, not making it. No one earns a billion dollars, they exploit workers and the stock market to get that wealth. In fact, they wouldn't know anything about money because they don't have loads of money, it's all wealth in various assets that they have accountants shift around, appreciate, depreciate, take loans on, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Well if that's true, then why do I base me entire personality on talking about how smart billionaires are and misquoting them?! Checkmate, people who understand that therapy only works if you're willing to speak honestly and listen earnestly!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    Universal healthcare is pretty cheap compared to all the money we’ve been hemorrhaging on wars, support to countries like Israel, tax cuts… hell, all of this is small potatoes compared to the economic destruction that’s been done with these tarriffs.

    We could have good healthcare for everyone for far less money than has been spent fighting with Iran this year.

    Also, the USA can still afford all this and more because we are the richest society in history. Let’s keep some perspective. Even with all the crazy bullshit that’s happened in the last few years, we’ve never actually been lacking for money. It just gets prioritized into stupid shit.

    There’s enough money in this country to pay for everything we want, and still have lower taxes than Europe. We just have to stop letting hoarders control the money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    Maybe stop paying $1.5 trillion dollars to the military industrial complex serving Israel, Wall St, military contractors and big oil.

    And maybe stop giving the rich tax breaks on generational wealth and capital gains.

    We only need a homeland defense force. That’s it. $100-150 billion a year is plenty. If we stopped the disgusting amount of military spending, we could have modern safety nets just like Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)