• carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s weird how all the things fucking up our country have been Republican lead- it’s almost like they don’t have people’s, or the country’s best interests at heart? Crazy coming from such flag waving patriots…

    • PunnyName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They literally want less government.

      You’ve all seemingly misunderstood my comment. Oh well, downvote away.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        1 year ago

        The definitely do not. They want the government to be involved in private medical decisions about one’s own body. Conservatives love invasive and overbearing governments.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why they want politicians to tell us what medical procedures we can get, why they want women to not be able to leave their states, why they want governments to pick and choose what books people can read and even what nicknames you can be called! Because small Government!

      • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        1 year ago

        That isn’t really true, now or ever. It is old, crusty propaganda. It is their excuse for their actions of opposing any and all (useful and fair) government spending, but they really just want to funnel all that same amount of government money, if not more, into the pockets of the people who bribe them. They also obviously don’t believe this as far as personal liberties, they want more power with which to control all finances to their own ends.

        None of that is “small” it is better described as “ineffective” or how I see it, “not designed for your benefit”

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        They want to show the government is “failing” so they can gut it and replace it with what they want. Profit and control. They know not enough people will pay attention to notice it’s republicans actively causing the failures.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        They literally don’t. The last time Republicans cut anything (spending, agency scope, etc) was… back in Reagan’s time? They say they want smaller government, but every time Republicans have control, they grow government, they just grow it differently than Democrats.

        For example:

        • Bush Sr. - didn’t do much other than passing bipartisan bills
        • Bush Jr - Patriot Act, TSA, military spending
        • Trump - tax cuts and increased spending (at the tail end of an economic boom), stupid tariffs

        And Reagan wasn’t the epitome of small government either, he just talked about it a lot. According to Mother Jones (strong leftist bias), Reagan grew the national debt substantially and increased the number of government employees (there were far fewer in 2012 than the end of Reagan’s presidency).

        I used to consider myself Republican back when I believed they were actually in favor of small government, but I have seen no evidence that Republicans actually are. So I switched my registration to Libertarian and now vote for both parties, depending on how I think the candidate views government.

    • Making sure, that Putins and Xis interests are protected… The Republican party is evidently chilling for Russia and at least by coalignment helping China tremendously too. How these traitors are not rotting in prison cells is beond my understanding. But well at least it is entertaining to watch from afar.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody has done more to advance Russian and Chinese interests than the democrats in the past year and a half. We now have a whole new world economy that’s completely independent of the west emerging around BRICS. This would have never been possible had US not decided to fight an economic war with Russia and cut it out of the global financial system. The proxy war has also exposed the west as being incapable to defeat Russia on the battlefield and showed that western weapons do not live up to the hype.

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bernie Sanders supported the carpet bombing of Yugoslavia. He is not a socialist.

            You can be critical of politicians and I have nothing against that. But those two things, if the first thing is even real, are not even close to being even remotely connected. One is strictly foreign policy while the other is pretty much economic policy (or at the very least social policy) and definitely not foreign policy. A person can be a socialist and want to nuke every capitalist country in the world. It most definitely isn’t a good idea nor one people should support, but it doesn’t mean that person isn’t a socialist. Similarly you can criticize Sanders for supporting bombing Yugoslavia (Once again, if it’s true. I don’t know and frankly I don’t care), but his foreign policy does not mean he isn’t a socialist.

            I’m also not saying he’s definitely a socialist. Some of his political positions are socialist while others are more socialist-adjacent, so he’s somewhere on the border of socialism and depending on your own beliefs he may or may not be a socialist. I haven’t gone over everything he stands for (because I’m not American and I don’t care that much about American politics) but I personally would call him more of a social democrat than a democratic socialist.

  • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wonder how many of their supporters have already forgotten that welfare checks won’t be sent out either?

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      1 year ago

      Their supporters aren’t on welfare, that’s for freeloaders.

      Their supporters are all on SSDI because they have back pain from being overweight, and they can both cash the social security checks (which come out of a different section of the budget) and as a bonus they can sell any oxy pills they don’t snort.

      • SkyeStarfall
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        “everyone else are freeloaders. I actually need the support I get though!”

        smh, it would have been funny if it isn’t such a common mentality.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wish we could just cut the BS and do something like UBI or NIT. The welfare system is so complex that understanding it is a job in itself, and I really can’t understanding how the poor navigate it. Just give them cash, and phase it out as they earn more.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        can sell any oxy pills they don’t snort.

        God I basically know a town made up of these people. Then they have to trade back pills for pill counts, crazy lifestyle those people live.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON, Sept 29 (Reuters) - Hardline Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday rejected a bill proposed by their leader to temporarily fund the government, making it all but certain that federal agencies will partially shut down beginning on Sunday.

    The defeat left Republicans - who control the chamber by 221-212 - without a clear strategy to avert a shutdown that would close national parks, disrupt pay for up to 4 million federal workers and hobble everything from financial oversight to scientific research if funding is not extended past 12:01 a.m.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Friday that a government shutdown would “undermine” U.S. economic progress by idling programs for small businesses and children and could delay major infrastructure improvements.

    Holdouts say Congress should focus on writing detailed spending bills that would cover the entire fiscal year, rather than temporary extensions, even if doing so prompts a shutdown.

    “We’re in the middle of a Republican civil war that has been going on for months, and now threatens a catastrophic government shutdown,” top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.

    McCarthy and Biden in June agreed to a deal that would have set agency spending at $1.59 trillion in fiscal 2024, but hardliners like Gaetz say that figure should be $120 billion lower.


    The original article contains 714 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know the Democrats could have stopped the government from shutting down forever by getting rid of the dumb accounting rules and passing something like the Stop STUPIDITY act in 2019, or similiar bills during Obama’s terms. But For some reason they just didn’t want to, almost like they don’t really care that funding keeps getting disrupted, or that abortion is getting banned or any of the things we all see the the government doing.

    • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is actually a myth. An oft repeated one, but it isn’t true. There was a supermajority in name only and only for a period of something like 2 or 3 months.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why does the GOP get what it wants without a majority, but the democrats need a super-hyper-majority, plus the parliamentarian, plus the presidency, plus a majority of State Governors, and they still can’t accomplish anything besides naming a post-office and passing a republican healthcare plan?

        • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because Democrats are not a monolith. Democrats are a coalition.

          Until trump split the party, Republicans have, by and large, been a monolith in lockstep with one another. Now the Republican party is fractured and you’re starting to see the cracks show. Kevin McCarthy reaching across the aisle for a budget bill is an example of that.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Perhaps the DNC should stop allowing abortion, healthcare and the envrionment to be compromised on if their official position is that those things are human rights? If you never make a stand for anything, what good are you?

            • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The dnc is not “Democrats”. The d party is a coalition, and like it or not, a not insignificant chunk of that are moderates.

              You keep wanting to approach things as though Democrats are one block. They are not, and most of us who are much further left despise the dnc. Remember when they actively sabotaged Bernie’s campaign, outright lied, cheated, and stole? I remember. That was the Democrats “dear leader” moment.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The DNC is the non-profit organization that controls fundraising, ballot access, and ultimately defines what “the democrats” are. If you are elected into office as a “democrat” you have sworn fealty to unelected organizations known as the DNC, or the DCAA and a few others. Make no mistake. The reason Hillary was the presumptive nominee is because she had paid those orgs and so do all the other “who’s who” of the democratic party. For all intents and purposes, if you are a “democrat” you are there because the various unelected powers have allowed you to be.