Could you help me out with that? Between this, the Laken Riley act, the support of the bombing of Iran, the support of the genocide, and the opposition to Zohran, the dems look like they quite like Trump, so I guess I just don’t understand. Or should we buckle up for more performative whine ins like Corey Booker did?
Assuming “this” means the impeachment effort, it was always going to be performative as long as the republiQans chair the committees. Besides that, the reason given is trump “de facto declared war on Iran”, which doesn’t mean anything. Again, that fucker Gee Dubz screwed this all up in the early 2000s. Declaring war is a Congressional matter, but the “predisent” can launch attacks without it. It’s involved but that’s the gist. It was DOA. The 125 Derps that voted against it saved everyone some time at the cost of looking like stooges.
The Laken Riley act is not good, but the history of the bill is super charged and I don’t think they were going to stop it anyway. It was the first bill of the newly republiQan majority House and the still republiQan majority Senate. They could have voted no and been defeated like the vast majority of Democrats, but 42 House and 10 Senators went for the tough-on-crime thing which is a very old problem. (That’s 13% and 10% repectively, if you’re into that shit.)
The support of the bombing of Iran: okay, you’ll have to pitch in here because I found much more about Democrats against it than Democrats for it. The one person who said flat out they were for it was Fetterman, and I think we all know what’s going on there. The few who “weren’t necessarily against it” were the olds who both either must support Israel even after all this garbage, OR remember the hostage crisis, or both. Again, the vast majority were against it, said so, and some took action to stop it. If you’ve got a specific link to cover it, share it.
The support of the genocide: this is an interesting read from Brookings, fwiw, that says the Dems who opposed Israel’s actions lost their primaries. Only 2% won them. 44% didn’t mention it at all when they ran. The short answer is that by-and-large, Democrats who spoke loudest against it were voted out (or not supported. Same thing). Primaries are critical, and for all the talk I’m trying to do about the midterms, you can see just in this thread, many people aren’t engaged yet. If they ever will be. There’s no defending support of it, but there’s a lot to do to speak out about it. I don’t think that’s the same as they support it - it’s not like they vote every week to do what they do. For that matter I want them to stand up for Ukraine, and it’s been drowned out by Gaza, much to trump and Putin’s delight.
The opposition to Zohan: first of all, he’s running for mayor. Okay, yes, mayor of 13 Million people, but it’s not like he’s passing laws or affecting anyone outside of that 300 square miles. Secondly he won a ranked choice primary. It’s exciting! I hope he wins! But he hasn’t yet. Thirdly, this may come as some shock to you but NYC politics run incredibly deep with money, corruption, and, well politics. It’s also a media capitol, so we’re hearing way more about it than we otherwise would. Old, moneyed interests freaking out about losing a sure bet. Dem strategists (usually scum) getting all kinds of ink about themselves if they talk about it. They’re freaked out that big money lost and desperate to hold on to the sure thing, and they’ll find a way to fuck it up. It’s not because they love trump, though. It’s because old moneyed assholes are republiQans anywhere else. You’ve got to factor in New York politics when you talk about it.
the dems look like they quite like Trump
That’s a view shared by a couple of distinct interests who would love Democrats to lose even more than they just did. I don’t subscribe to it.
True, true. Go with the party that impeached him twice the first time around.
So just ignore what’s going on right now? That’s like saying I should vote republican if I care about black rights because they abolished slavery.
Understand what’s going on right now.
Could you help me out with that? Between this, the Laken Riley act, the support of the bombing of Iran, the support of the genocide, and the opposition to Zohran, the dems look like they quite like Trump, so I guess I just don’t understand. Or should we buckle up for more performative whine ins like Corey Booker did?
Sure.
Assuming “this” means the impeachment effort, it was always going to be performative as long as the republiQans chair the committees. Besides that, the reason given is trump “de facto declared war on Iran”, which doesn’t mean anything. Again, that fucker Gee Dubz screwed this all up in the early 2000s. Declaring war is a Congressional matter, but the “predisent” can launch attacks without it. It’s involved but that’s the gist. It was DOA. The 125 Derps that voted against it saved everyone some time at the cost of looking like stooges.
The Laken Riley act is not good, but the history of the bill is super charged and I don’t think they were going to stop it anyway. It was the first bill of the newly republiQan majority House and the still republiQan majority Senate. They could have voted no and been defeated like the vast majority of Democrats, but 42 House and 10 Senators went for the tough-on-crime thing which is a very old problem. (That’s 13% and 10% repectively, if you’re into that shit.)
The support of the bombing of Iran: okay, you’ll have to pitch in here because I found much more about Democrats against it than Democrats for it. The one person who said flat out they were for it was Fetterman, and I think we all know what’s going on there. The few who “weren’t necessarily against it” were the olds who both either must support Israel even after all this garbage, OR remember the hostage crisis, or both. Again, the vast majority were against it, said so, and some took action to stop it. If you’ve got a specific link to cover it, share it.
The support of the genocide: this is an interesting read from Brookings, fwiw, that says the Dems who opposed Israel’s actions lost their primaries. Only 2% won them. 44% didn’t mention it at all when they ran. The short answer is that by-and-large, Democrats who spoke loudest against it were voted out (or not supported. Same thing). Primaries are critical, and for all the talk I’m trying to do about the midterms, you can see just in this thread, many people aren’t engaged yet. If they ever will be. There’s no defending support of it, but there’s a lot to do to speak out about it. I don’t think that’s the same as they support it - it’s not like they vote every week to do what they do. For that matter I want them to stand up for Ukraine, and it’s been drowned out by Gaza, much to trump and Putin’s delight.
The opposition to Zohan: first of all, he’s running for mayor. Okay, yes, mayor of 13 Million people, but it’s not like he’s passing laws or affecting anyone outside of that 300 square miles. Secondly he won a ranked choice primary. It’s exciting! I hope he wins! But he hasn’t yet. Thirdly, this may come as some shock to you but NYC politics run incredibly deep with money, corruption, and, well politics. It’s also a media capitol, so we’re hearing way more about it than we otherwise would. Old, moneyed interests freaking out about losing a sure bet. Dem strategists (usually scum) getting all kinds of ink about themselves if they talk about it. They’re freaked out that big money lost and desperate to hold on to the sure thing, and they’ll find a way to fuck it up. It’s not because they love trump, though. It’s because old moneyed assholes are republiQans anywhere else. You’ve got to factor in New York politics when you talk about it.
That’s a view shared by a couple of distinct interests who would love Democrats to lose even more than they just did. I don’t subscribe to it.