It’s an older story but it’s important to bring up though because there’s a lot of “Do nothing democrat” BS that’s coming up repeatedly.
or almost as if most politicians are nothing but puppets to more powerful organisations
Ah there’s that “both sides” again
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?
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.
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.
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 comment is such a damning insight into liberal logic. Incredible.
They really see it in black and white. Blue MAGA indeed.
Keep the price low for medic and increase the tax on sugar.
Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake
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
diabetes
I did not know that. But I still think it is a good idea.
“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 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).
It’s all of the above, comrade
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gotta preserve those family values of inter-generational diabetes and related diseases
It builds character!
But think of those poor multi billions pharmaceuticals and their struggling investors and stock holders.
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.
Anyone saying both sides is a clown.
Both sides suck, but at least the Democrats don’t want to turn America into an ultra-capitalist evangelical dictatorship and a white ethnostate.
Republicans Republicans is triggering my paranoia and OCD
I don’t know if this is the case with the post, but my phone tends to do this when voice typing.
It’s like one of those things that goes:
I bet that you’re not reading this very carefully. You almost certainly won’t even notice the the mistake in it at first.
Except they fucked up where to put the line break
Yes, more people will be able to buy it the medicine and the people selling sugar will lose some. Can’t people make bigger profit of something useful to humanity or the earth instead?
I think you replied to the wrong comment
That’s called chunking. Basically, you don’t read every word in a sentence you just process units, or chunks, that you are familiar with, in this case “the mistake”. The first the is in a different chunk than the one right next to “mistake” and since that chunk is not restricting or altering proper resolution (based on your expectation), it gets scrapped at the end of processing the text.
Another culminating factor that makes it hard to spot the duplicate has something to do with eyesight. Essentially, our eyes have 2 modi: fixation and sacchades. Fixation is the standard modus and the optical nerve sends the stimuli to the brain uninterruptedly. Since the duplicates are at the end and the beginning of the next line, you have to move your eyes a longer distance to keep reading; you are performing a so-called sacchade. In order to prevent blurry sight and nausea stemming thereof when you move your eyes to another focal point (same principle like a blurry image from moving a camera while taking a picture), the optical nerve stops sending pictures to the brain during the movement. Upon reaching your new focal point, the brain backfills your memory of the travel time with the first picture it receives from the new position. This masking is called chronostasis because a very noticeable occurrence of this is that the time seems to stop for a brief moment when looking at a clock and the first second feels way longer than the following ones.
Interesting, thank you!
The the the the the the
the the the the theGood luck finding the typo!
Fuck you, I spent like 90 seconds on this
Maybe it’s an attempt to cancel them out. Like multiplying -1 by -1.
Anyone saying “both sides” is a lying right troll, period.
Republicans
“The government shouldn’t control anything”
“The government needs to ban abortion people tho”
Republicans Republicans*
Can’t even read the memes… I’m going back to Reddit.
/s
Yeah this is why I hate anarchism. Obviously we need a state to enforce all the human rights violations /s
In a true anarchist society, what stops the very same people who are committing human rights violations now under the guise of government from doing the same thing as freelancers?
The libertarians and social conservatives on the right are usually at odds with one another.
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.
In a pairlamentary democracy
republic, which most states in Europe are, the government is elected by the pairlament and thus, (usually) has the majority of seats in the pairlament anyway. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how the opposition votes.
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.Edit: replaced republic with democracy, as many states have a king and thus are no republics. Changed parts are emphasised.
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.
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.
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 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
