While Eva Burch spoke on the Senate floor about her planned abortion, almost all of her GOP colleagues found something else to do

    • brlemworld@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Their plan is working. We’re too busy talking about basic rights while they fuck us over on shit like climate change and education.

      • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, but I’m not going to let them lynch, deport or force birth on any of my homies. If they want to burn the planet down they’re in the same shit we are, but they aren’t being effected by the changes to basic rights that they’re proposing.

        • tb_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          If they want to burn the planet down they’re in the same shit we are.

          They have considerably more wealth. If/when food and water get scarce they’ll have a considerable advantage, if the current system continues as it is.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            If/when food and water get scarce their money won’t mean shit, and the people with nothing left to lose will start looking at the people with a whole to lose.

            • tb_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              The cost of living is already going up and people are already dying unnecessarily, the rich aren’t nearly as affected by it.

              Stop talking about the “apocalypse” as if they have no way to prepare for it.

      • derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hell, they are attacking from all sides. Fucked by bills, groceries, income, taxes, every-fucking-thing. I struggle to grasp if there is a side that isn’t being attacked.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Divide and conquer. The only ones not under attack are the rich who instigate all of this.

          We need to find them and introduce head removing machinery in their immediate vicinity. But everyone’s like nooo, violence is not the answer, think of the property owners who have to pay for their interior redecorating.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Bruh, we are busy discussing our fucking genital identities and who to gets to fuck whom.

        I wish it was about climate and education, but literally both sides think they’re immune to propaganda and are on the right side of history.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Conservative voters clearly want some sort of change but aren’t articulate enough to know what it is or eloquent enough to ask. They want someone to get into the government and fuck up the process as an act of protest. But they don’t know how to ask for that. Instead they vote in the loud, viscous remains of a person with a fragile ego to be the damage they want done to those who they think wronged them.

    Cruelty is the point.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      The issue is that a lot of people have every good reason to be pissed at the state of the world and to be angry that it isn’t changing for the better. The Republicans sure aren’t ever going to make things better, but their entire marketing technique is based on harnessing that anger. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to mostly be afraid of even acknowledging that the anger and its causes even exist, and that’s one of their biggest weaknesses.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        “We’re the Democrats we can’t possibly be responsible for any of this frustration and anger. Also have you heard those young people talking about workers rights and not supporting genocide? Ah to be young and naive.”

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 months ago

    Why do we allow our politicians to refuse to do their job and just leave when they don’t want to deal with something?

    Fucking make them go, listen, debate or kick their ass out.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      I was extremely angry when whatever dipshit was photographed playing angry birds or some shit from behind during a legislative session. My mother (a conservative apologist) tried to excuse the behavior. I told her that if I’d done the same at any number of menial-labor jobs that I’d had, I’d lose my job. Fuck these people.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Fuck the system that enables them. Those conservative cunts want a civil war. I say let’s go, and finish them off properly this time, instead of letting them go back to their homes with their weapons and let them continue the last war behind the scenes for over a hundred years without anyone catching on again.

        Look at Germany pre- and post 2nd World War.

        Night and day.

        Because we didn’t fuck around that time around.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s like when the government refuses to comment on something. Motherfucker you are a servant of the state, you are under our mandate. We tell you to speak, you fucking speak you dancing fucking monkey.

      We need a new system. We can’t be running shit the same way in the AI age and a global population of, what, 9 billion?

      Our old systems of governance did NOT scale.

      Consider the population of the US in the 1700’s. We have about a hundred times that now, but the same amount of representatives.

      That means that every representative today has power over a hundred times more people than originally when the constitution was written.

      That changes everything.

      • StayDoomed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        A lot of time the government refuses to comment on something because doing so would conflict with law, undermine an active criminal or civil case, or they are still working on it.

        Saying “the government” in one broad general statement shows some degree of ignorance as to how the very systems you say “do not scale” work.

        Yeah big parts of it are fucked up. A lot of politicians are power hungry sociopaths. But there are a whole lot of civil servants that work their asses off every day for below market rate pay in spite of how fucked up it is trying to make it better in a tangible way.

        Maybe saying “the political system” might be more accurate than “the government” because a lot of the government is working pretty well despite the political system being so fucked up.

      • boeman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        No… The house of representatives has grown multiple times with the last permanent growth in 1913. It did temporarily grow by 2 when Alaska and Hawaii were made states, but went back to 435 after those states got their appropriations of representatives.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because it’s what their constituents want them to do. The voters aren’t holding them to a higher standard and will re-elect.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Their constituents are completely unaware because they’re uneducated and struggling with keeping their homes and pay off astronomical medical debts due to that one ingrown toenail a decade ago.

        All they know is that their eternal rulers since a hundred years blame someone else, and the power of the church cements their inclination not to rock the boat and “stick together”.

        Who can blame them in a two party state? We have one alternative party more than Russia, or China.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            idk man it was pretty explicit, considering the fact that the second it was removed, legislation went into place in order to ban it on a state level. Seems pretty explicit to me.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Wdym? The SCOTUS ruling was explicit, the constitution never mentioned it though.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                yeah, idk if you noticed, but generally, theres this pretty cool thing about the US government where its really fucking bloated, and so anything can come from anywhere. It’s not like amendments are set in stone either. I mean slavery would be a thing still otherwise, and women wouldn’t have rights.

      • MJKee9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Technically, both gun ownership rights and abortion rights were based on supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd and 14th amendments (respectively). Given the reversal of the right to abortion under the 14th amendment, an argument could be made that a similar reversal is due for the 2nd amendment as well. The 2nd amendment could simply be interpreted to mean that gun ownership is only a right as part of a "well regulated militia.'. In my opinion, that is the plain meaning of the provision anyway, but I’m just a gun toting liberal that doesn’t get sexually aroused or validated by the size of my firearm.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m with you my man, but you’re speaking to a bunch of 17-year old furry tumblerinas in here, you need to take that into consideration.

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    A single Republican even bothered to stay to listen to her. Kudos to Sen. Ken Bennett for that, albeit small, act.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    9 months ago

    urging GOP lawmakers to consider the harm caused by the restrictive laws they support.

    The cruelty is the point. This just tells them it’s working.

    • IamSparticles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 months ago

      Look up, that’s the point going over your head. Also, she’s a senator in the Arizona state legislature, not the US Congress.

        • Jackie's Fridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well of course. No human being would actually use her personal struggle to call attention to the need for systemic change. Let’s just complain the government is corrupt so we can dismiss it all and justify our own complacency.

          • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That dude is OG American Idealist. Fucker never strayed from his principles, and the principles are humane and sound.

            Of COURSE he can’t be president. The Confederacy won because they didn’t stop fighting when the US declared victory and let them all go home with their weapons.

            Why is it that it’s always the Southern states who are all about keeping their guns to “avert tyranny” even though they live under literal tyranny?

            Because they see the Union as the tyrant, and they use the Union’s charter against the Union they want to “protect” themselves from.

            The civil war never ended, they just kept waging it through other means.

            I mean, “starve the beast”, “southern strategy”, and rednecks obviously killed Kennedy.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    70
    ·
    9 months ago

    Aren’t they all Democratic Senators? I feel like Democrat or DNC and Democratic shouldn’t be as interchangeable as they are, it took more effort to type less clearly.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is the influence of Rush Limbaugh. He wanted people to say “the Democrat party” instead of “the Democrats”. It sounds like “rat” and “democratic” is generally a good thing.

      I actually forgot his name and had to look up “conservative radio host drugs”. Brought him up right away.

      Always make sure to call it the Democratic party as a FU to him.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        9 months ago

        Once again, just DNC is easier and much more clear. Plus, if anybody emphasizes the rat in Democratic it doesn’t make me think less of democracy it makes me think less of that person.

        • Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 months ago

          DNC is reserved for the party leadership. The democrats i encounter in the real world may or may not identify with the party leadership (e.x. the democrats i meet over the age of 65 tend to identify with Kennedy, not Schumer.)

        • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          The name. Same way Republicans work for the people republic just in the name.

          As someone outside of the US, the amount of deceptive naming there is in your country is insane.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Any elected politician in the US is part of a democratic republic. So you could technically call them all “democratic” and “republicans.”

      It is what it is, that’s why we say “small d,” “capital D,” “small r,” and “capital R.”

      The system of government is a democratic republic, the two many parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      None of them are democratic, they’re actually all Republican.

      …Because they’re representatives… In a republic. I was being literal. Yeesh, tough room.