I don't watch cable news and I don't pay attention to Jeff Teidrich or whoever so I don't know where this bullshit is coming from. At least one person responding is nominally anti-genocide, so I don't think that's the reason. Another came back with something about the funding bill for FEMA as if it's a gotcha.

What's their logic?

  • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    3 months ago

    This makes it something of a disingenuous argument attempting to spread the narrative that "Democrats support genocide more than the they support struggling American citizens".

    Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people

    it is an attempt to tie two unrelated events together to keep topics damaging to the Democrat election machine alive while the news cycle has shifted to a topic that could hurt the Republicans election machine.

    The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much

    Everything is connected and not in a pepe-silvia way

    Attempts like the Democrats attempt to increase funding to FEMA which was blocked by Republicans.

    Did they try when they had a majority and could've pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren't serious about passing anything that helps people

    • EndOfLine@lemm.ee
      ·
      3 months ago

      Except this is completely true, both parties care more about funding a genocide than helping people

      I totally agree. The current political climate is very much one of "why try to solve a problem when you can profit off of it."

      My issue is in the choice of language. Trying to make it seem like one party is to blame when both are.

      The idea that every event and subject should be separated and looked at in a vacuum is peak liberal bullshit and probably the most overlooked ideology that makes our society suck so much

      There is a difference between direct and indirect connections. In this instance, the aid sent to Isreal has no direct or immediate impact of federal aid to the communities impacted by the hurricanes. It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.

      Did they try when they had a majority and could’ve pushed through whatever they wanted without opposition? No? Then maybe they aren’t serious about passing anything that helps people

      I am very confused by this argument. Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities? Please, can you expand on what you mean by this?

      • Bobson_Dugnutt [he/him]
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is, however, connected in that it shows the priorities of current legislators.

        Yes, exactly. That's what I meant, but I think people took it in a partisan way.

        Are you suggesting that if a party does not push legislation when they have control over both houses then they should never try to pass it in the future, or that conditions and opinions are not allowed to change resulting in a shift of priorities?

        Speaking for myself, if I was in charge of a political party that had just gained majority power, I'd have a plan ready to pass as much priority legislation as possible in that term, knowing that I could lose the majority at the next election. The Republicans understood this, which is why we're still dealing with a lot of Trump's executive orders and appointees.