LovingHippieCat @ LovingHippieCat @lemmy.world

Here's my substack, I write about videogames and have good and bad takes ab

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's both. The Republicans expect the Republican voters to come out and always vote and always vote Republican. Which they do. And the Republican voters expect the Republican representatives to adhere to their beliefs through the fear of the primary.

The problem is Democrats only have some of it. They have the democratic representatives expecting Democrats to always come out, but the voters don't. Because of the democrat voters not coming out, because of them not putting the fear of the primary in the representatives, Democrats don't have to adhere to their constituents as much as Republicans. If we want Democrats to cater to us, we need to both always come out in the primary and the general. But also force primaries to kick out Democrats who don't follow the base. Because if we don't always come out and vote, Democrats have to cater to the people who DO always come out and vote. Which are Republican voters.

Democrats have put forward voting reform laws that get rid of gerrymandering and citizen unity and have supported getting rid of insider trading for Congress members (although that one has less support). There hasn't been the proportional voting reform put forward in Congress but the only party fighting for that on the state level is Democrats. Maine got it passed because of Democrats campaigning for it. So saying that Democrats wouldn't do any of what I talked about is BS.

Democrats who throw marginalized voices under the bus deserved to be primaried and kicked the fuck out of office. They're supposed to be supporting us, not giving an inch. And if the people currently in office won't do that then the thing to do is primary them, not just abandon the Democratic party.

Edit: republican voters put the fear of the primary in their elected representatives if they didn't/don't support all of Trump's policies without question. We should be putting the fear of the primary in the Democrat representatives too.

Definitely agree. On all your points. I've had AI be able to tell what I'm working on in my IDE and be able to literally complete the rest of my code for what I was doing with minimal errors. It's pretty nuts. Same thing where I was learning a new programming language and the AI was able to help me basically convert my knowledge of prior languages to the new one. It's ability to teach, as long as you continue to ask questions about it because sometimes its first answer is wrong, is really helpful!

I think AI summarization and search are also great. Particularly search can be great for those of us who are both bad at googling things and are tired of the ads. I've had questions that I've googled and have to go through so much to get to the right thing (simple stuff, just differences between stock and broth or whether to throw out meat that has a slight smell to it), but then you ask the AI and boom, there's the answer. And with AI it's a lot easier to do the search, you can just ask the question instead of having to use fancy techniques for getting the right results.

AI has some great uses but the problem is that it's getting used in ways it shouldn't be at all. Like the way the article talks about and in any artistic fashion. AI is a very exact tool, not a catch-all for everything.

This is of course bigger than just AI but this kind of thing is one of the things that really bothers me about it. AI is useful for a handful of things, I've mainly just found it useful to help debug code. But the industry puffs it up so much as this revolutionizing force which leads to people doing things like this. Take a tool that is useful in less than a handful of circumstances and have it do EVERYTHING. Because the industry says it can and they wouldn't lie right?

Of course all this will do is revoked visas of brown immigrant students.

Fuck dude, I hope that all the calls that his office is getting shows him he fucked up. The right will never like him, they view him as a globalist who believes in science and shit.

Maybe, maybe, he will have a trans advocate on his podcast who will give the information about how BS this shit was. But even if he does, the damage has been done.

This is another moment that shows why we need to remake the democratic party during the primaries next year. We need to go out and vote for progressive candidates so people like Newsom see that progressive is the right way to go, not this shit he's doing.

Some stuff from your link

Republicans can’t pass a spending bill without Democrats but they’re trying to ram through a MAGA budget disaster that slashes essential programs, attacks basic rights, and enables the Trump-Musk coup.

They can pass that budget without Democrats. They're going to use Reconciliation like the Democrats did under Biden. So this one is moot. Also in this point they talk about how the Democrats just have to refuse to vote for a bill that cuts the social programs. Which they have. So both moot and already done.

Deny a quorum to completely freeze Senate business. If Republicans don’t have 51 votes on the floor, Democrats can walk out, preventing the Senate from doing anything at all.

What? The Republicans have 53 senators. As long as each one is there they can still do whatever they want. This one just doesn't make sense.

Refuse to give an inch. Block every unanimous consent request and force the GOP to waste precious time on every single step of the process.

This one is actually dead on and something that should happen.

So basically the article you linked has 3 ways the Democrats can fight back. The first way is something they're already doing, refusing to vote for a budget that cuts programs. But also the point is moot because it says they need Democrats to pass the MAGA budget but they don't. So that point doesn't work. The second is also moot because the Republicans have 53 senators and will be able to do stuff if the Democrats are there or not. And the third is actually an option they can do.

So your article has 1 possible action while acting as if the Democrats aren't already doing another one of these. The article is saying they will gladly vote for a budget that cuts the programs despite the Democrats saying they won't.

Thanks The Guardian for not mentioning how he also talked about a trans woman that set a new record on a race by 5 hours. Turns out 2 things, the race is over 800 miles and takes 8 days so 5 hours is next to nothing, and also that it was a Co-Ed race. So the trans woman set a record in a race that takes 8 days and I would bet she set that record because she traveled just a little bit faster than her competition.

He portrayed it as the trans woman setting the record in woman's sports but if he said it was a Co-Ed race then his point would be moot. But the Guardian can't talk about that because they are on his side there.

Yes. The vast majority of the party supports us and fights for us. A handful of Democrats have come out and said they think the party is "too far left" on the trans sports stuff but the majority of the party? They support us. The article should at at the end of the headline that they passed this first test because they blocked the fucking bill.

Theres a massive problem with propaganda in this country to the point where Unions, public school Educators, Farmers, Poor folk just barely managing to survive until their next paycheck would all rather vote for the guy who wants to make unionizing Illegal, who wants to dismantle the Department of Education and public schools, who wants to take away farmer subsidies so that small time farmers collapse in on themselves, and who wants to take away the very federal programs that help poor Americans survive. As opposed to a candidate who wanted to support more unionization across the country and support workers right to strike, who wanted the department of Education to remain in existence and had a teacher as her VP who talked about how teachers needed raises, who talked about going after big time corporations who also happen to be massive farmers and force the small time farmers to sell to them so that the small timers now make no or actually lose money while the corporation gets their subsidy, and who talked about raising the minimum wage to 15 an hour "at least" and supported legislation that would allow for said poor folk to get more benefits and be lifted out of poverty.

Democrats are and were pro worker, even if not perfect. But the workers abandoned them because at least the Republicans say they'll fix everything right away. And hey if they don't, these things take time. But if a Democrat is elected and says they'll fix everything right away, that they'll change the country and they don't do it immediately, well that's just because Democrats are incompetent.

Many many workers are voting for Republicans knowing it's against their interests because of hatred and bigotry. The Democrats need to do better, the need to be reshaped into a more progressive party, and they need better messaging and marketing, but to say they aren't already the pro worker party is fucking disingenuous at best and outright spreading far right propaganda at worst.

The Republicans weren't in the minority during Obama's term except for the first 2 years when he got a shit ton done. But in 2010 they got elected to the majority in the House. They weren't a minority party except in the senate until 2014 when they managed to take it.

The reason the Republicans were able to Kneecap Obama wasn't because they were the minority party and the minority party can just do that, it was because they had power. Because the voters elected them in the midterm election with the lowest turn out in decades and that shaped the rest of his presidency.

Democrats right now don't have any power besides the Filibuster and that is definitely going to be used for legislation. But Republicans are also going to use Reconciliation to do some of their most influential legislation because that way the Democrats can't do shit.

And they're planning on passing it in the Senate with Budget Reconciliation so the Filibuster won't stop it.

SF is incredibly liberal, I could absolutely see Nancy losing and finally being forced to retire. Just gotta get people out to vote during the Primary.

Pelosi was elected when she was 41-42. Saikat Chakrabarti is 39, so only a couple years younger than when Pelosi was put into Congress. This is the perfect time for her to be forced to retire.

This is stupid. Bernie is great but if you want a progressive candidate like him it should be AOC. Bernie will be 86 in 2028. That's nuts. It's crazy how many people who harp on how we shouldn't have old people in charge are suddenly okay with it when it's the one they like.

Bernie is too old. It. Should. Not. Be. Him. Under any circumstances.

30 years ago he was also in his 50s and a 3 term congressman in Vermont about to be reelected in the 1996 election for his 4th term. Basically the same place AOC is now, he also wasn't nearly the powerhouse he is now. The only reason he is the person he is now is because of everything after.

Didn't know that, I'll edit the comment, thanks for the info!

Edit that I hope I made in time for you to see: does that mean that the parties that are under 5% are waisted votes? So does the percentage of vote total show that the country is majority left leaning but because so many voters voted for parties that didn't break 5 those voters won't be represented and the seats that would have gone to leftist parties if they had broken 5 will go to the center left party who did? Basically, is voting for parties who don't break 5 like Americans voting for Third parties, completely pointless?

Edit at the top: turns out, any party that is below 5% doesn't make it into the Bundestag, so the multiple leftist parties that fell below that 5% were waisted when it comes to getting seats. The country though still has the majority left leaning vote percentage wise. I'm only keeping the original comment for posterity, some of it is wrong as has been pointed out by the Germans in the thread.

Interestingly, if all the center-left and the leftists parties all added up their percentages of the vote, they get roughly 51.2% of the vote. Now I'm not super knowledgeable on how that affects their Bundestag, but if that means that said 51.2 percent have a majority of seats, they could join together to make a coalition government and keep the far right out of power.

Course that won't happen because us leftists love infighting and refusing to compromise with our fellow leftists for the greater good while the right easily falls in line.

Also interestingly, this could mean that the far right/conservative party is going to be put into power in Germany winning the minority of the vote overall for the second time that I know of. And we all know what happened last time.

Edit: And again, this is all preliminary so it could change and as another commenter mentioned the AfD is a pariah and is still unlikely to be a part of the government due to the conservatives saying they won't be. But who knows, people lie.

Thanks for pointing that out! Fixed it.

I'm sorry, a week ago I was told by CBS and the poster of the article that 53% approved of Trump and called him Energetic and tough. The poster said that we can't deny that the majority of people approve of all that Trump is doing. Now we see that actually his approval is much lower just like I was saying a week ago? That almost all of the approval rating polls show his approval as somewhere in the mid 40s which is significantly less than that CBS poll?

Huh. Maybe CBS was just trying to avoid the 20 Billion dollar lawsuit.

Here's the link to the total Results of the primary election. If Bernie had more Votes he would have won. The facts are that not enough people got out to vote for him. He didn't have anything stolen from him.