They’re just straight up evil.
Dear Freeloaders, It’s time to start donating to your local stations.
I’ve finally found you, Adam Homonym, and find you lacking. You should consider Act don’t Preach supplements to become less hollow. 💜
I really hate this administration.
They’ve had a hardon for public broadcasting for thirty years, which is why NPR and PBS have been preparing for this and why their funding largely doesn’t come from the feds anymore. It’s a hollow victory, it’s just depressing because anymore, it seems the right gets everything they want. They get it all. All of it. And we get nothing.
So are these channels likely to stay afloat then? This is really fucking sad if not.
What’s sick is that they are a fraction of this country. But thanks to their money and their platforms, they can constantly repeat the lie that “most people are conservatives”.
No, the kind of weird perverted freaks that dream of killing funding to NPR and PBS are definitely not normal and not the majority. But yeah, thanks to a lot of various things, they get what they want…it’s sickening.
I wish more people voted.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
LOL, wut.
What’s 2A?
Second Amendment of the American Constitution: “the right to keep and bear arms”.
Yeah, when people post this it means, “shooting people will fix everything.” It conveniently ignores that the government has control of the most powerful military in the world. Now, if the MILITARY were also in on the “2A” talk, it would be different, but I very much doubt they will be.
What event in recent history makes you think the US military is any good at dealing with insurgencies? In addition to the most powerful military, the US also has the most heavily armed populace in the entire world. Rebellion here would be a bloodbath of historical propprtions but the people would win. If you call that winning.
Military is irrelevant.
“The enforcement arm of the fascist government is irrelevant.”
I don’t see any way this can be true. How do you figure?
Because you think the 2A means “meet an entire military force on a battlefield”. Nobody with actual thinking ability would jump to that conclusion, as you have done.
None of this has anything at all to do with the US military.
Pretty much. Americans are the most heavily armed civilian population in the world, hasn’t prevented their slide into decay.
Cool, so that pays for .001 of the national debt… Interest.
The War On Acceptance
Elmo’s attempt to appeal to their base failed.
Wrong Elmo, they’d probably do better with this shotgun-wielding version:
Elmo’s original voice actor had a bunch of sexual allegations against him. Republicans love that.
It’s just all vengeance and spite for decades of having to “tolerate” even a modicum of liberalism in their lives.
You spelled ‘not having slaves’ kinda funny there.
I disagree with the defunding, as many of the programs supported by NPR and PBS are pretty interesting / educational – but to claim its just a ‘modicum’ of liberalism in regular media channels is a bit odd, especially if you look outside ‘just’ the ‘news’ (news sources are slanted towards right wing, definitely).
But if you look at things like netflix/most streaming services, or hollywood movies, or ‘leisure’ type shows in general, there’s far more than a ‘modicum’ of liberalism.
Care to provide some examples?
NPR is the only news media that consistently tells me the core news, why it’s important, and never “how I should feel about it”.
What about AP?
Is always telling me to donate and get all the cookies in the world.
What did people expect. Trump and his largest donor both own social media sites and these are competitors eyeball time for ads
The Mr Rogers presentation that makes me want to cry. What a hero.
So sad… This also eliminates public weather alerts in rural areas.
Removed by mod
Go on, centrists. Why was there no filibuster this time?
Rescission packages aren’t subject to the filibuster, only a simple majority is needed. Expect more of this.
You can filibuster anything if you have the will. The Democrats just don’t have any care to fight for anything but their pathetic jobs.
At this point I fear that it would be the best case scenario if all the Democrats were sniveling little controlled opposition weenies.
What if a lot of them are good people with the will, the energy, the means, and the awareness that now is their time to make history, and they are not because the writing on the wall (or the approaching shit tsunami, if you will) looks that much worse from the inside where they can see the machinations of this takeover in action long before it hits the news. And maybe they’ve heard some consistent believable inside rumors about the details of certain high profile suicides.
They sure seem to be the useless variety though.
No, you can’t. Debate time is limited in the senate for a rescission package. There is no filibuster, neither a traditional talking one nor one where they just say they’re filibustering to prevent a vote.
I suppose someone could just talk and refuse to stop. They would be ruled out of order, and if they didn’t stop the Senate Sergeant at Arms would have them removed. If every democrat did that I guess that would hold things up a bit, but it’s not a filibuster and eventually the vote would proceed.
Better to be dragged out for standing up for what is right than to roll over and show your belly to the butcher.
Given who we’re taking about, I won’t hold my breath for it.
Sounds like something democrats could have used during the biden administration. Did they?
Frankly, it’s starting to look like democrats always have an excuse. Have a majority? Oh shucky dern, we can’t pass what we ran on but never intended to pass because of the filibuster! WOOHOO! I mean, it really is unfortunate that we can’t do anything.
Don’t have a majority? There is always some reason you can’t filibuster! WOOHOO! I mean, it really is unfortunate that we can’t do anything. Donate to put us back into power that we will refuse to use!
Well a rescission package can only be used to cut spending, so it couldn’t have been used by the Democrats to pass new spending.
What do you think they should have used it to cut?
The military, the police, the prisons, ICE, TSA, DHS, CIA, NSA… any number of oppressive organizations that exist to protect the exalted status of capital.
I’m with you there but you could not have got even a simple majority of elected representatives to agree to that. It would have to be something that Democrats broadly support.
Isn’t that the point of this thread? That Democrats don’t support the working class?
I thought you were saying they were ineffective at enacting their agenda because they didn’t use rescission packages.
If we’re talking about what you just said I have no quarrel.
Why would democrats ever defund any of those? They don’t even seriously dislike any of them.
That’s my point. Democrats don’t have the best interest of working people in their hearts.
What do you think they should have used it to cut?
The funding for trump’s wall.
Yeah, they should have. Congress ended up doing the opposite, forcing him to continue funding. Democrats don’t have nearly the party unity that Republicans do around immigration, I think that’s why it keeps being leveraged as a wedge issue.
The main reason republicans are able to get better results from a filibuster than the democrats is republicans don’t give a shit about the consequences.
When there is a lapse of government funding it causes chaos in a lot of programs that tens of millions of people depend on. Even if it’s just a day, the government spends weeks preparing for it and when it’s over it’s not like flipping a switch and everything goes back to normal, there is a long recovery period. Even getting close to a lapse results in wasted effort preparing for the possibility which takes away from running the programs and harms people.
For republicans that’s an added benefit to a point, not something to be avoided so they will hold out until they get a large portion of what they want. Democrats have to weigh the pain and suffering from a lapse against getting concessions so their thresholds are different.
But as absentbird said, that doesn’t really apply here because rescission isn’t something that democrats are going to use often.
The main reason republicans are able to get better results from a filibuster than the democrats is republicans don’t give a shit about the consequences.
The democrats get the results they want from the filibuster. It blocks progressive legislation and that’s all it’s for.
Democrat answer: Filibusters are ‘not a good look’. We want to be seen as the party of reasonable adults who honestly want to work across party lines to help our constituents. We won’t vote to end the practice as it has a long history and tradition blah blah blah
Honest answer: We don’t give a single fuck about our constituents, the only people we are beholden to are the lobbyists who line our pocketbooks. It’s easier to control the narrative when all of the media corporations are owned by billionaires.
What if I’m unwilling to vote for a party willing to cooperate with nazis?
Then people who like the collaborationists will blame you when they lose and take it as a sign that they should collaborate even harder.
Of course, they take everything as a sign that they should collaborate even harder.
Nah. You’re not thinking like a politician. The real answer is, “this will be a PR disaster for them. LOL this is really goin to help my fundraising”
How else are you going to fund Elmo’s tax cut?
Every single jackal that voted for this should be primaried into oblivion
