Lol, I'm glad you picked up on the sarcasm. I was kinda worried since we are on .world, so I tried to ham it up as much as possible.

Just do it, show you are delivering, and then tell the story loud and proud that you pass the law and Republicans told the American people no, stop giving a fuck about what Republicans will do and just do you.

Right.... But we're pretending that Democrats haven't attempted to do this in the past. The problem is that the constituents of the DNC actually hold their representatives accountable candidates the constituents of the RNC tend to not give a shit.

the democrats refuse to play hardball.

What exactly would that entail? What kind of hard ball would effectively overturn or prevent an executive veto?

I think the inherent problem is that there is no real way to overturn a presidential veto without winning a super majority vote in Congress.

Since Trump is termed out and is officially in his lame duck period, there's not a whole lot of leverage to force him to behave in any particular way.

Might have to do with testosterone production?

So you admit you are a foreign actor trying to do a mind terrorism against the democratic party! 🥳 We found them! We found the foreigners responsible for Kamala losing. Guys we don't have to change after all, third way politics is totally here to stay forever.

Not exactly breaking news..... He was on the leaked list of members of Thiels Dialog forum. Any politician tied to a secretive investment organization run by billionaires should probably be automatically investigated. Especially when official topics of discussion include things like "Navigating WW3"

Eh, there was evidence that Russia was utilizing bot farms across social media networks to interfere with elections. However, the vast majority of that was happening in 2016.

Since then liberals have utilized it as an excuse to shield themselves from any form of criticism, even in cases where people explained their reasoning, or on platforms like lemmy where it would be silly for a Russian agency to spend time and resources.

Pictured in this meme: Midwestern American introduced to food containing fiber experiences what it's like to not be constipated for the first time.

There were plenty of issues with the Soviet Republic, just like with any other government at that scale. Production capacity itself wasn't't really one of those issues.

MORALITY extends from MORES at a societal scale through codifying expected behaviour as moral right.

Mores is used to describe the scope of what a particular group of people believe to be moral in a fixed period of time. That does not mean that morality in general is defined by any set of social mores.

I guess the entirety of academia must be morons according to you to write entire books and articles about the MORALITY of different political systems.

Those academics are not judging the morality of different political systems by the political systems own social mores..... That would obviously be redundant.

If mores produce a philosophy of welfare, how exactly do you suggest that morals are somehow separate from society?

I never claimed any society was devoid of the concept of morals, just that social mores can be described by people both inside and outside of that particular group as immoral/unethical. Both I and the Quakers contemporary to the time of slavery can both correctly determine that slavery is immoral/unethical.

You seem to think that there is some sort of universal moral code.

Lol, the whole point of the philosophical concept of ethics is that it's an open debate. If you think something is immoral, then you can make that determination and convince other people to do the same. I would argue that there is no universally moral way to live your life, but in any given society you could argue that certain actions are bad for society or human decency as a whole and should be labeled as immoral.

suggest you sit down before you embarrass yourself much further.

Says the person who claimed slavery wasn't immoral......

You apparently don't even understand the difference between morality and ethics. Slavery was moral within systems that allowed/perpetuated it. Slavery was a regulated practice under christian states, for instance, where treatment of slaves was dictated by moral decrees of the church. The ETHICS of slavery has not changed, but humanity's MORAL understanding of it has.

Slavery was legal, not moral. Just because something is regulated does not mean that it becomes more moral. Morality and ethics can be used interchangeably in most cases. Some philosophers distinguish between the two, saying that morality concerns more with the individual interpretation of morality while ethics deals with the philosophical concept of determining what is right or wrong. However, that does not mean that someone's subjective perspective of a scenario is determinative or that morality is fixed in time or by social group..

Just as the MORALs of capitalist societies favour rich people and provide a different justice system for them, or the morality of patriarchal societies favour men. The ETHICS of justice are very different than the MORALs of justice. The ETHICS of humanist discourses (through the enlightenment era) were why feminism and anti-slavery/social rights movements were able to flourish in the first place, despite the overwhelming MORAL systems that defined the oppression of the eras that came before (and continue to persist).

Lol..... It would still be a semantic dispute, but the word you are looking for is not MORALS, it's MORES. Morals are un fixed to a certain group or time period and are subject to modern interpretation. Mores are fixed to the time and group of particular people.

The implementation of emergent ethics and morality into justice system apparatus' is the process through which societies regulate what they consider as morally good.

Lol. Yes because it's always been "society" who dictates legality....... You do realize that legal systems predate democratic societies, right?

Women's suffrage, for instance, was a battle that was fought using ETHICAL arguments to recognize women as human to overcome their place within a system of MORALITY that denied women that standing. Just as the MORALITY of spousal rape, or even rape more broadly, has been integrated into the justice system as MORAL wrong because of pressure from feminist scholars, who broadly have used ETHICAL arguments to see such change occur.

You really have just invented a revisionist theory based on a semantic dispute.....

That you don't understand that considering a hierarchy, a governmental system, property rights, etc., as "good" or "bad" is inherently a moral consideration is all the evidence anyone should need to see that you don't have an even basic grasp on theories of ethics or morality.

Lol, who taught you this? It's like arguing with a chatbot fed solely off of reddit circa 2012.

Morality and ethics can and often are interchangeable, you could make an argument about the difference in a philosophical discussion. However, claiming slavery as a social construct is immoral or unethical or even bad...... Is perfectly valid.

You just wasted so much of your own time writing nonsensical slop.