596
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 66 points 5 months ago

Fucking disgusting how they talk about it. As if it's just another political stratagem that went a little awry. Fucking fuckers.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

Because it was. It was a great wedge to capture religious types and people who were vaguely "in favor of not killing babies" but didn't comprehend the reality of abortion bans. Now that they actually killed roe and we're seeing the devastating impact, they can't tout it as a success. And since roe is already dead, they can't use it as a wedge to activate voters. So it goes away.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 5 months ago

Worst thing that can happen to conservatives is achieving their stated objectives. Not only do people realize how terrible it is, but they also have to go find another issue to scare people about.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Be careful about this attitude. I personally haven't been affected by the abortion ban, so to call it a 'devastating impact' is a bit of a bridge too far. I do understand that it's devastating for many, but especially those who really want zero abortion they see it as a wild sucess and are fearful that if those 'devil worshiping democrats' get back into office, that they'll undo all those years of their hard work. They are still using it as a wedge issue.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I can't tell if you're joking, but if a 10 year old having to cross state lines for an abortion, then the first state going after the doctor in the second state with legal action isn't a bridge too far but my language is, you might live in a bubble.

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The point is that the average Joe isn’t a 10 year old pregnant girl. Of course it’s horrible, but a large majority of people aren’t seeing (paying attention) to that. They haven’t and won’t feel the consequences for many years. They see this as hyperbole.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

And the tiniest percentage of abortions are late term abortions, performed unexpectedly to save a live or prevent suffering. And yet THAT'S all Republicans talk about. Bans cause more harm than they prevent by a significant margin, but since the average republican isn't a raped child they don't care? Is that supposed to make me more charitable towards them??

[-] TehWorld@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I’m not asking for charity towards Republicans. You’re not changing the extremes of either party.

Using terms such as “devastating impact” when the average Joe Republican hasn’t felt ANY impact isn’t going to win votes, but rather make them think that the Republican side who simply is letting it slide is more reasonable, whether it’s true or not.

My parents voted for Trump twice. They’re anti-abortion and they’re HAPPY about the abortion bans. Again… HAPPY. Sure they, along with the majority of Right-Leaning folks would agree that a 10 year old shouldn’t have to have a baby, but they contrast it against all the arguments of “not killing the unborn” and see it as an overall win. Calling out individual horror stories is a good tactic, but you’re not winning any votes away from Trump and the Republicans by “yelling” at them about a “devastating impact”.

It’s the same thing with a LOT of issues. I live in the middle of the country so sea rise doesn’t affect me, right? People have their heads stuck in the sand and if something doesn’t affect them personally, it turns them off of your cause to speak in extremes. Global Warming hasn’t killed anyone they personally know, so calling it extreme isn’t going to ring true for them. The fact that we have had the warmest year on record, the most storms, the biggest swings in temperature, those are all FACTS, (just lil a 10 year old having to have an abortion) that DOES affect them and WILL help them to understand.

Again, you’re not going t change the extremes, but we need to fight for the people that might just be willing to stay home On Election Day or just skip the President box… I’m working on my parents constantly, but it HAS to be a slow burn or they’ll just shut down and ignore all the facts.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So yeah republicans don't care until they're personally affected, that's not new. The impact isn't any less devastating simply because people are too ignorant to understand it.

we need to fight for the people that might just be willing to stay home On Election Day

That's my point from the first comment I made. Republican candidates are removing abortion from their sites because there's been a significant swing in voter support, mainly among women. They were already running slim margins in many areas, and lately they've been slaughtered in elections, polls, and referendums.

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee -2 points 5 months ago

Yeah it's a typical "made up issue" in order to distract from the politics that is actually important to peoples lives. And both parties are playing that game.

I haven't read the whole article but I can guarantee that mainstream media is also not talking about the actual mechanisms at play here. They are "in on it". They are taking it at face value that the GOP is actually serious, and thus are helping distract from real issues. Because they are owned by the same people that this benefit from this distraction. And this emotionally charged topic is helping them to sell advertisement.

Now that it's actually impacting people horribly it's the same for democrats: They could have passed a federal abortion right law, but it's actually beneficial for them to drag it out. They could have stacked the supreme court but that is not in the interest of their masters.

And that way papers like the independent are still contributing to propaganda.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

As if it’s just another political stratagem that went a little awry.

that's all it ever was to them. they don't believe in anything other than their own power.

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah they have to. Those who desire power or money above anything else are more likely to achieve it. Because of this almost all powerful politicians or billionaires are some type of sociopaths or very narrow minded "emotionally retarded" person. Otherwise they fall behind competing with other sociopaths.

I've never heard a name or seen a discussion for this phenomena. It seems to me to be the defining characteristic of those in power and the most important thing to understand in order to fix the systems of power.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

https://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828 https://www.amazon.com/48-Laws-Power-Robert-Greene/dp/0140280197

A lot of people are talking about it. Both from a clinical, adaptive standpoint and from a "how-to guide from experienced sociopaths to budding young sociopaths" perspective

[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Thanks that's very interesting, I'll have a look. I'm thinking more from a political and economic perspective of "democracy can never work as long as certain rules and mechanism are in place and not even known because never discussed". People keep talking about ideology and reform and stuff but maybe it can never work like this.

[-] JSocial@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

Chris Ryan calls it Rich Asshole Syndrome.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
596 points (98.1% liked)

politics

18042 readers
3077 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS