Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg’s plan to spend $20 million to primary older Democratic incumbents in Congress has sparked intense anger from some lawmakers.
I love his energy, but I sincerely disagree with the whole gun control narrative right now. Leaning into that when there are about to be a shitload of far right militias deputized is an absolutely fucking idiotic plan.
I get it, but this is where he comes from, I thought the same thing you did until I read this.
So like… I was in my early thirties when this happened. I know. I remember. I watched some of the news livestreams as it went down.
I said what I said understanding that.
I am by no means trying to diminish, demean, discredit, disparage, or otherwise detract from his experience. Im saying that I am very fucking concerned that an actual war is coming, and disarming right before a war is a great fucking way to get killed.
If there’s an actual war, I can’t see Democrats having any really power at the national level until it’s over anyway.
Those laws wouldn’t get passed until this whole thing is over and there are progressives in office able to actually do things, if that happens. You wouldn’t have gun control as the law of the land in two months. And guns need to take a massive fucking back seat in America. No more blood cult shit, because that’s what it is.
Go for what you actually want, which is freedom. Freedom is when you aren’t surrounded by people with guns.
Freedom is black folks being able to shoot Klanners who try to burn down their homes. The 2nd Amendment isn’t just for pricks.
Exactly. He has the right idea on this, but given his gun control background I don’t trust him any farther than I can throw him. Gun control is, at this point, nothing more than a way to lose votes. To an anti-gun liberal, gun control is good policy that saves lives. To a pro gun person, gun control is an unconstitutional civil rights violation that makes a candidate unlectable. This turns away an awful lot of pro-gun moderates from rural areas- these are the voters who make a difference in elections.
And as for the anti-gun base, and anti-gun moderates, what are they going to do, vote Republican in protest? Let’s be real.Gun control is a lose lose proposition
Gun control means: mandatory background checks, waiting periods, bans on previously convicted violent criminals owning guns, potentially magazine limits or limits on fully automatic licenses to specific users (like you may need to demonstrate you have proficiency and be a member of a gun club). None of this goes against “the right to bear arms”.
It does not mean nobody can buy guns or that guns are taken away - this is the fearmongering always pushed by the very conservative, very pro-Trump NRA.
Gun control seems to mean ‘a little more’. This comic is popular among gun owners because it reflects the feeling of constantly ratcheting ‘compromise’.
A perfect example of that is background checks. The original bill was a compromise, All gun sales at gun stores are required to have a background check, but the compromise is that private sales between one person and another are exempted. That was a negotiated compromise between the pro gun and anti-gun side. I think for the most part it was a decent compromise. But now the anti-gun side is trying to roll it back calling it the ‘gun show loophole’ which is horribly named because a gun dealer at a gun show has to do a background check anyway, and most gun shows require background checks for all sales either from a dealer or a private citizen.
The problem with universal background checks is the concept of a transfer. For example, under some proposals, if you want to lend somebody your hunting rifle to go hunting with, that might count as a transfer, which means you have to go to a gun store and pay about $50 and fill out paperwork to legally transfer ownership of the gun to them. And then when they return they have to transfer it back to you.
You should also know that an awful lot of gun owners absolutely hate the NRA. They serve a useful purpose, but their constant deranged rabble rousing fundraising makes gun owners look like paranoid morons.
What I would much prefer to do is outreach and education. An awful lot of gun control laws are based on a total misunderstanding of what guns do and how they work and what makes them powerful or not, I think if more Democrats actually understood guns you would see fewer attempts at bad laws that do nothing to increase safety but just try to turn the screws on gun owners.We agree on what “gun control” means. We do not agree on the need for gun control, nor do we agree on the affects of gun control on the right to keep and bear arms.
Mandatory background checks
That means forced to go to an FFL dealer before trading guns with your friends and neighbors. No private sales, even to trusted parties. Unacceptable. Every legitimate purpose that a mandatory background check provides can be accomplished by creating public access to NICS. With that in place, every seller can know, and so is expected to know their buyer’s status. But, “public access to NICS” is not part of our shared definition of “gun control”, and has been fervently opposed by Democratic leadership every time it has been proposed.
waiting periods,
Even in theory, waiting periods can only achieve their intent with first-time gun buyers. For everyone else, they serve no purpose other than to hassle gun owners. You could theoretically walk in to a gun store with an AR15 hanging from your chest, a Remington 870 over your shoulder, a S&W 500 holstered on your waist, a 1911 on your hip, a Glock 26 on your ankle, and an LCP in your pocket. But, while you’re walking around with three defensive pistols, a big game handgun, a shotgun, and an intermediate caliber rifle, the clerk at that gun store won’t let you leave with a bolt-action .22LR plinker. Suffice it to say, waiting periods are unacceptable.
bans on previously convicted violent criminals owning guns,
The only reason to even mention such bans is to deceive people into thinking they don’t already exist. They do. That deceit is completely unacceptable.
potentially magazine limits
The usual limits proposed are 6 or 10 rounds. These numbers are not derived from any studies on defensive need. They do not consider whether 6 to 10 rounds is sufficient to stop a deadly threat. They do not consider multiple attackers. Unacceptable. The various proposals often apply to guns that can accept such magazines, rather than the magazines themselves, and would thus make most existing guns illegal. Only firearms with fixed magazines could comply with such laws. Unacceptable.
limits on fully automatic licenses
Fully automatic firearms, suppressors, SBRs and SBSs are already overburdened with excessive licensing restrictions. Unacceptable.
Harassing gun owners with these ridiculous gun control measures is costing elections. David Hogg was brought to the DNC by the inept leadership to support their losing message on gun control. He and his pet issue are part of what the Guillotine Party needs to excise.
The USA is alone in the entire world in that it has a mass shooting almost every day of every year, and yet when faced with modest controla you’re like, “if I, a citizen with no gun dealer licensr can’t just sell whatever guns whenever I like to neighbours and friends then any changes are unacceptable”.
You say pro gun-control candidates will cost the Democrats votes, well I think I just found a single issue voter.
You say pro gun-control candidates will cost the Democrats votes, well I think I just found a single issue voter.
It’s not my vote you need to worry about. I voted for Harris, Biden, Clinton, Obama, Obama, Kerry, Gore, and more Democratic governors, legislators, judges, commissioners, and administrators than I feel like counting. Democrats didn’t, and won’t lose my vote over gun control.
The votes you should be concerned about are the ones who aren’t here, arguing with you. The votes you should be concerned about are the ones that turned former bellwether swing states into reliably red states. Ohio for example. A state that voted for the eventual winner in 36 of the last 41 elections, going back all the way to the civil war. A state that is now considered reliably red.
Democrats did nothing to prepare for the kids and grandkids of the first generation of concealed carriers across the country. Kids who now have their own carry licenses. The Democrats never bothered to consider the effects of 30 million new gun licensees in 42 of the 50 states, nor their families and friends. Never bothered to consider that voter opinion on guns might have shifted since the civil rights era.
Gun control is one of the more prominent issues of dissatisfaction with the Democratic party.
Frankly this is a good idea in the long term despite a possible short term loss.
The Tea Party hurt the Republicans in the short term, but they took over the party and purged the liberal elements. They replaced Eric Cantor with a speaker who does everything they want. They’re a monolithic block now and have been winning out on their strategies ever since.
AOC ousted 10-term congressman Joe Crowley in a primary by a huge margin. A few more of those couldn’t hurt.
I agree, we do need a “Guillotine Party” to do for us what the Tea Party did for the GOP.
Unfortunately, Hogg and gun control are part of what needs to be removed.
As always, there’s some excuse for why the person who is trying to move the party to the left shouldn’t be doing that.
It’s neat watching the party go from “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good! It’s just a little genocide!” to “This guy who is primarying centrists who hold us all back doesn’t agree with republicans enough!”
Of all of the people in this thread for whom the second amendment fills the void where a personality would be in a more complete person, not one cares about the incumbents’ opinions on firearms.
As always, there’s some excuse for why the person who is trying to move the party to the left shouldn’t be doing that.
I don’t know if you didn’t get the memo or something, but the left likes guns now. Gun control is not “moving the party to the left”. Gun control is a plank in the old, establishment platform, and needs to be thrown out along with those ancient fossils.
Of all of the people in this thread for whom the second amendment fills the void where a personality would be in a more complete person, not one cares about the incumbents’ opinions on firearms.
Nobody gives a shit about the incumbent positions on anything, with the possible exception of their retirement. Get them the hell out of office, and bring in some actual leftists.
Nobody gives a shit about the incumbent positions on anything, with the possible exception of their retirement. Get them the hell out of office, and bring in some actual leftists.
Provided that the person calling for it has the opinions you prefer on guns. And only guns.
Provided that the person calling for it has the opinions you prefer on guns. And only guns.
No, that conclusion does not follow from the facts at hand. There are any number of issues that raise my ire. I’ve railed just as vociferously against Hogg for guns as I have against any number of democratic fossils, for reasons ranging from pro-genocide, to appeasing Republicans, to senility. Gun control is just one of many disqualifying conditions. That he and I share an absolute disgust for Retired-in-Place Democrats is not sufficient to rehabilitate his image. He is an honorary fossil, and needs to go along with them.
Just seems like whenever there’s someone who is trying to get the party to move to the left, suddenly there’s some criterion for why they shouldn’t.
Bernie’s too old and that was a problem from 2016 until the second Biden announced. It’s a problem again now that Biden is out of office. AOC is a woman and that’s suddenly a problem because she’s seizing the moment. Hogg doesn’t agree with the NRA on guns.
There’s always some excuse.
Just seems like whenever there’s someone who is trying to get the party to move to the left,
Again, “gun control” is not a leftist issue. Gun control is keeping the party from moving left.
Further, Hogg isn’t trying to move the party to the left. He openly supports legacy Democrats like Pelosi and Hillary who built the failed party, and he is looking for younger candidates who will keep the party right where theose decrepit fossils planted it.
And the kids that die as part of your demand for gun ownership rights, you just dont care about them at all do you. You need to man up and take care of your community.
We should be doing this to every single motherfucker who clearly is doing insider trading.
We’ve been past the fume stage for a fucking while
We’re mad bc he’s not like us. Good!
I think it’s safe to say that the ancient Democrats who’ve been holding onto their seats by sheer force of incumbent political influence, contributed to turning Hogg into a school-shooting survivor. Obviously Republicans bear more responsibility thanks to their gun/violence fetish, but these Dems wouldn’t be so angry if he hadn’t touched a nerve. They’re clearly afraid of young people with new and rational ideas.
I hope these young’uns keep at it, their passion and drive is inspirational. Since the geriatrics in power clearly can’t smell their own bullshit anymore, fuck em. No one is entitled to power, you have to earn it like Hogg has through his dedicated activism. His organization has helped pass more than 250 gun safety laws, for example. He’s actually doing shit.
Not only that they’re afraid of both the real left and real right of young who can vastly transform the country for the better if they worked together
Which they are doing already. But if they do it even more on every level then that will be HUGE transformations every day not weeks or months or years or decades
The greatest strength the younger generations have is adaptability and having a clearer mind of what to focus on as a collective
They strength themselves, and even more so with others
That’s a great point. The party is only hurting itself in the short and long term by not welcoming younger candidates and trying to elect people who are actually willing to wield their power by trying shit out, rather than just further entrenching themselves by wielding their political influence. That’s the difference, the younger generations are willing to try out new policies and see if they work. That’s how this whole fucking system is supposed to function. Try something out, if it doesn’t work then too bad, you lose the next election and continue working on your ideas while the other party tries their shit out to see if their ideas work. We’ve strayed so far from that, that everyone is just accustomed to the government not trying big things, and nobody trusts that the other side would ever govern or compromise in good faith.
That’s why their anger is so frustrating to me. They’ve been there forever and done jack shit, and whine like children when someone young comes along and acts more mature by offering to fix the shit the elders have refused to.
Let me guess - the older lawmakers who voted for some of Trump’s cabinet nominations?
Exactly. And those older law makers get in the way anytime people want to even attempt to make things better.
Useless old parasites upset they are being dislodged from the host.
has sparked intense anger from some lawmakers.
Who gives a shit. What do potential voters think?
“What a disappointment from leadership. I can think of a million better things to do with twenty million dollars right now,” swing-district Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.) told Axios.
“Fighting Democrats might get likes online, but it’s not what restores majorities,” she added.
The issue is we get majorities and then nothing gets done with depresses turnout.
We don’t want to primary these old conservatives, we’d much rather them represent their constituents, but they’ve shown time and time again they won’t.
We’d rather they get out of the way and resign, but they won’t put the future of the party over their own personal power.
So fuck em.
I agree about “fuck em”, let’s get out with the old and in with the new.
But what majorities are you talking about? I keep seeing this repeated all over the internet- the sentiment that Democrats get nothing done when they have control. The problem is that I’m 33 years old and the Dems have only had control of the federal government for a few months of my life, and that’s when they passed the ACA. I can’t really make a judgement on what the Dems do when they’re in power because they largely have not been.
So the best thing the Democrats could do when they had a super majority was pass the Republican healthcare plan? And you don’t see why that’s a problem?
removed by mod
It was literally based on Mitt Romney’s healthcare bill in Massachusetts. Unless you think the guy that ran on the Republican ticket AGAINST Obama wasn’t a Republican.
Romney was indeed a Republican, but a moderate one. The Church of Latter Day Saints has always been a weird outlier in American politics, and as a Mormon Romney largely follows that tradition. Utah itself is a great reminder that the trends Americans see with the two-party system, where every issue is a binary choice with the GOP or DNC each picking an option, the reality on the ground is more complicated.
It’s also worth looking to how Romney was the first senator in US history to vote to impeach his own party’s president. He did it again the 2nd time Trump was impeached too, along with a handful of others.
That’s not to say that I like Romney at all, or even that I like the ACA or even that I like the Democrats.But Romney is perhaps the furthest left Republican and created that initial bill with the intention of being a bipartisan compromise. He’s far closer to Neoliberal than Nazi. And while it was the foundation, his bill was NOT the final bill that passed into law. The bill that did pass saw 100% of Republican senators vote against it. It passed 220-215 in the House with 1 meaningless Republican vote. To say it was a Republican bill is simply historically inaccurate.
The criticism is valid but antiquated. It was Romney’s healthcare framework for Massachusetts, and Obama (in typical fashion) led with a compromise to attempt to avoid a fight with conservatives and conservative democrats. By agreeing to private insurance mandates and not even fighting for a viable public option, I agree that Obama really missed a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
The reason why it doesn’t make sense now to level the criticism that it’s a “Republican healthcare plan” is that we’ve shifted several Overton windows to the right since then. A “Republican healthcare plan” in 2025 is an uninsured ER visit, where they are allowed to turn you away; you die in the street, after which your surviving family is billed for the corpse cleanup.
That compromise with a group that had been screeching about hiw they won’t work with you for the previous 15 years is exactly how we got to where we are today.
Yes, for sure. While everyone else was in realpolitik mode, it seemed clear to me you don’t start a negotiation with a bad faith opponent by ceding your strongest position.
Obama governed as a centrist, and while I agree he probably escaped unscathed without any long-term ill will because of it, he squandered a ton of opportunities. Oh, and we got Trump as a reaction to the GOP’s boogeyman propaganda anyway.
Calling another user a Russian bot is a civility violation so your comment is removed.
But further, the reason Obamacare is often called “a Republican plan” is two-fold:
First, there’s not a lot of daylight between Obamacare and what Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts as “Romneycare”. Democrats would like to believe otherwise, Republicans would like to pretend otherwise, but there it is:
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/romneycare-vs-obamacare-key-similarities-differences/
"you guys had a proven model that we built the Affordable Care Act on this template of proven, bipartisan success. Your law was the model for the nation’s law.” - Barack Obama.
Second, unlike universal health care, Obamacare forced people into the clutches of the for profit health care system when, ideally, it should have eliminated it. Forcing people to give money to companies is a Republican bulwark, not a Democratic one.
My apologies if a crosses a line with the comment, but calling the ACA Republican is demonstrably and factually false and, in my opinion, actively spreading disinformation.
The bill passed the Senate 60-39, with 1 abstaining. All 39 Republicans Senators voted against it. It passed 220-215 in the House with only 1 Republican vote.
If you want to say it wasn’t enough, that’s completely fair and I would agree. If you want to say the Democratic Party, both back then and today, is dominated by Neoliberal interests and suppresses Progressives or Socialists or whoever else then I would also agree. But none of that was the conversation- the bill that passed was demonstrably not Republican.
No, I’m saying that Barack Obama, the architect of the plan, straight up told everyone he based it on Mitt Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts.
That’s what people mean when they say “Republican Plan”. It’s a copy pasta from Mitt “Corporations are people, my friend” Romney.
Then why didn’t Republicans vote for it?
And not just votes. Republican Attorneys General across the country tried to get it overturned in the courts. The House and Senate Minority Leaders have quotes strongly against it. Romney himself did not hold any office at the time the ACA was passed, but was preparing for his next presidential campaign. He described it as “an unconscionable abuse of power…the act should be repealed”.
If you look more closely at the Massachusetts state government in 2006 when Romney was governor and passed “Romneycare”, you’ll find that the state Senate was dominated by Democrats 34-6, while the state House was dominated by Democrats 139-20-1. There’s a much, much stronger case that Romneycare in Massachusetts was a Democratic piece of legislation than there is that the ACA was Republican.
The Republicans had plenty of control of the federal government before Obama, and their plan of "leaving Americans with nothing* was already in place. That’s what the Republicans voted for in 2010 by voting against the ACA.
It was absolutely a Republican bill. The Democrats tried to implement universal healthcare in 93 but the Gingrich controlled House shut it down. If Obama and said he wanted to offer a tax break to first time gun owners, the Republicans and Fox News would have called it a communist plot to create a Democrat controlled militia. The Republicans are only ever interested in obstruction
was pass the Republican healthcare plan?
Technically it was a more conservative version of the Republican healthcare plan…
But that comment also incredibly misrepresents how long Dems have held dual majorities, which is a much bigger issue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congresses
Yes. Sadly, it was RomneyCare, and the very first thing VP Biden did in negotiations was throw out the public option as a pre-concession to republicans. They hadn’t even begun debating the bill yet.
Biden was the VP at that point but yeah fuck that shit
Oops, fixed, ty
Who said anything about dual majorities?
you owe it yourself to read up on american political history and; if you did; you would learn that every time they’ve had control of all 3 branches of government; they’ve squandered it by letting a one or 2 democrats derail all of their plans, meanwhile republicans steamroll over their own dissenters every time they’re in control.
you’d start to see that this pattern keeps happening again and again.
What times are these?
As I said, they have only had control for 4 months in my lifetime. Before that you need to go back to 1961-1969 with Kennedy and Johnson. I would actually need to do more research to find out whether they had a Supermajority or not, but it’s not even worth looking up because going that far back in time shifts the politics of the parties significantly and is not very relevant to today. The Democratic Party still has plenty of Southern Conservatives all the way into the Carter years.
So I would love to know what pattern you are seeing.
I think they’re including technical majorities that failed to effect meaningful change because of DINO shitbags like Manchin and Sinema.
Even without those DINOs they still didn’t have a Supermajority. Honestly I think most people just don’t understand the difference between a majority and Supermajority and mistakenly believe 50 is enough in the Senate.
have you ever wondered why republicans don’t need a super-majorities or why dems give a rats ass about dino where republicans dont every-single-time?
democrats had full control from 1993–1995, 2009–2011, 2021–2023 and majority control from 2011-2015 & 2023-2024. in other words: 12 years of complete or majority control out of the last 33 years.
every single time their agenda was thwarted by one or two lone dissenters within their caucuses; where republicans completely steamrolled over their own dissenters.
You should looked up how Congress works. They need a Supermajority to pass most legislation, and the Dems only had that for about 4 months from 2009-2010. The last time they had that control was under Kennedy/Johnson in the 60’s.
The problem is that I’m 33 years old and the Dems have only had control of the federal government for a few months of my life, and that’s when they passed the ACA.
What?
We literally had it 2021-2023…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congresses
And from 07 to 11…
What are you talk.ing about “a few months”?
They had control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives. I never said they didn’t have that- I said they didn’t have control of the Federal Government.
The Senate was tenuous. Just having 50 Dem Senators (well, that’s not true either because you need to include Independents to get to 50) isn’t good enough- you need 60 votes to have a filibuster-ptoof majority. The Dems just barely scraped that together in 2009, complicated in part by Ted Kennedy’s seizure and eventual death and Al Franken delayed in getting seated due to recounts. They only had 60 votes (still including Independents) from September 24th 2009 - February 4th, 2010. 4 months of controlling the federal government.
That is why when the 2008 financial crisis happened and the Dems wanted to pas a stimulus package in 2009, they had to get Snowe, Collins, and Spectre (who would leater switch parties to get them to 60) from the Republican side in order to get that passed.
They absolutely did not have control of the Supreme Court at any point in the Biden administration and the Republican SCOTUS shut down a lot of what the Biden administration tried to do. I remember checking every day for months to see how they would rule on Student Loan forgiveness, for example.
This is why they have the perception of being powerless- because they’ve pretty much never had the power. The Republicans love people who say the Democrats are useless. They love saying Biden didn’t do what he promised when he DID and the GOP-dominated Supreme Court reversed it. They love being able to stall Democrat legislation and blaming a Democrat president. Everything the Dems have done outside of those 4 months have required careful compromises and negotiation with the GOP to pass.
They had control of the Presidency and the House of Representatives. I never said they didn’t have that- I said they didn’t have control of the Federal Government
They also had 50 D senators and Harris as the tiebreaker…
They had the whole federal government for two years but didn’t get shit done because suddenly the guy who campaigned on being a literal “senate whisper” who said he could get R votes wasn’t able to get every D vote.
If you can’t understand 2021-2023, stop trying to cover earlier too.
We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else. Each member is individually elected to represent their state or district. For better or for worse, they get to decide what is best for their constituents and their constituents get to respond in the next election.
Joe Manchin was the major impediment in 2021-2023. He mostly supported the party’s agenda but had some sticking points. He had to be onboard with whatever passed given the razor thin majority.
I saw all these screeds about how he should be kicked out of the party, but the objective reality is there is very little you can do to pressure a centrist Democrat from a state that voted for Trump by 50 points. The only option available was to placate him and come to a compromise (which he ultimately agreed to for major climate change reduction investment).
The reality is that the Democratic Party is not monolithic, it has some centrists who don’t support some of the more ambitious goals of the party. If you want bigger action, you have to have a bigger majority. Slim majorities give small wings of the party outsized influence on policy.
We don’t have a parliamentary system where a party can kick out an elected member for not supporting the party’s agenda and replace them with someone else.
-
That doesn’t mean no pressure can be applied, if it does then Biden is a liar and ignorant of how our system works… Why didn’t you speak up when he kept claiming he could apply pressure to get Republican votes? But regardless of if it could have worked, Biden refused to try public pressure
-
The fact that we can’t kick them out of the party is why the new DNC is advocating to primary them out.
-
You’re skipping the whole “fillibuster” thing. You need 60 to even have a vote on a lot of issues.
The filibuster that the Democrats always refuse to abolish. The fact that the filibuster still exists in 2025 is proof that they don’t care about Americans.
Where was the outrage when AIPAC dropped money bombs on progressive primaries to silence opposition against Israel and the Genocide of Palestinians?
The DNC is dead to most USians, the party leadership just refuses to acknowledge it even when their candidates and strategies lose to literal outright fascists.
No, this is the bare minimum I will accept in order to not consider the DNC my enemy.
Burn it down.
Also, age isn’t the problem, the problem is money and a rigid party ideology.
Where was the outrage when AIPAC dropped money bombs on progressive primaries to silence opposition against Israel and the Genocide of Palestinians?
Well when people called it out, Reddit and Lemmy said anyone who saw this was:
- Antisemitic for not wanting murder
- A Tankie/Russian Bot
- Somehow wanting Trump to win by having better candidate to win against Trump
- Sore losers who didn’t like a “fair” election like Trump
- A Bernie bro who hates $THING
If you look at the lemmy.world modlog, so many people calling out this were removed and banned, and then the userbase acted dumbfounded when the legitimate users were “quiet” after being banned, so it verified their bias of “everyone who disagrees with what my favorite political tells me is a bot/troll”.
I agree, I lost a huge amount of respect for the people running and moderating lemmy.world after dealing with their reactions to people simply upset that a genocide is happening.
I had an interaction with one of their mods and it was very disappointing to see them so confidently on the side of silencing voices speaking up about genocide.
Sometimes I get the feeling lemmy.world is run by a bunch of centrists who’s hobby it is to undermine leftism because they are afraid of leftwing beliefs exactly the way pathetic conservatives are, and it makes it hard to take the entire community seriously.
Some of the prominent very active low effort posters like Pugjesus have absolutely trash views when you actually get into a conversation about their beliefs.
I had an interaction with one of their mods and it was very disappointing to see them so confidently on the side of silencing voices speaking up about genocide.
Was it JeffW or JordanLund? Both of those dudes can’t help defend genocide. Especially JL, he openly hates Black Lives Matter.
Sometimes I get the feeling lemmy.world is run by a bunch of centrists who’s hobby it is to undermine leftism because they are afraid of leftwing beliefs exactly the way pathetic conservatives are, and it makes it hard to take the entire community seriously.
And they call us the Russian Psyop/bot. I’ve had so many people say things like “I’m a leftist, but [defending the most conservative positions possible].” At least .ml is honest in their intentions.
Some of the prominent very active low effort posters like Pugjesus have absolutely trash views when you actually get into a conversation about their beliefs.
And he’s so fucking smug! He will defend his trash opinions, say he’s the smartest one in the room, and then act like he’s the victim when he says something like “I don’t think you should ally with these people when ICE comes knocking” or “I don’t have to respect the pronouns of people I don’t like.”
Lemmy.world is a majority of my blocklist. I like a handful of users from it. But the mods and admins have cultivated a inverted MAGA mentalitt around themselves. Anytime you critize their favorite thing, you’ll be banned and blocked. And then they claim it’s evil when .ml does the exact same thing.
On top of everything above, the snark against any criticism of us foreign policy, the DNC, or neo/liberalism has been getting really gross. Completely overriding any genuine discussions or nuance about the topics.
I got perma banned by pugjesus on one of his comms for defending the blowback podcast and the journalists who created it
I’m definitely thinking about switching instances
That sounds like PugJesus and transphobia.world. “Vaguely leftist” my ass.
Im gonna agree and disagree at the same time. Money and party ideology are absolutely problems within our political systems, BUT age is also a huuuge problem. Its in my opinion if we had a majority of the dem party under 50 we would have seen such a better fight against this fascist bullshit. Hell even a republican party thats led by a significantly younger majority may have even helped to prevent this as well.
Also, age isn’t the problem, the problem is money and a rigid party ideology.
They’re not exactly the same thing, but they’re certainly correlated.
Dem insiders just don’t have the same values as their erstwhile voters
Dem insiders are criminally corrupt scabs who are largely to blame for fascism.
Hogg is 100% right and they are just whining like babies when they should be doing their effing jobs.
Let them pound sand. These geriatric bastards are incapable of adapting to the malevolence currently destroying everything. We need somebody willing to punch these conservative bastards’ teeth down their throats.
Any other job where you fail as hard and as often as those old fossils do, you get the fucking boot. Why do they think they’re entitled to their fucking seat? You fucked up and have been responsible for having the world’s worst person elected twice now. Time to go.
He is trying to get rid of the dead wood.
DNC: We need older candidates.
They are so good at messaging.
David Hogg is literally a vice chair of the DNC and has the backing of the chair in saying this…
You’re literally commenting on the DNC doing what you want and saying they’re doing the opposite
How ya feeling about this now?
