• alucard
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 months ago

        Agreed. But Splitting that evangelical vote would be priceless

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          they only care about hurting the outgroup. they don’t give a shit about the bible. if they did, their real God selling his own version of the bible wrapped in a flag for profit would have been all kinds of sacrilegious and unforgivable. but they don’t worship the biblical God, they worship the orange idol.

          don’t for a second think that they are genuine in their faith. it’s just a team, and helps them hate the other teams so they can feel better and holier than others without actually even attempting to be good people themselves.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It wouldn’t do that though, the dems are the “not us” group so the evangelicals have already decided that everything they do is evil.

          Morality by association rather than by actions is a hell of a drug.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I really want Dems to weaponize legislation like this. But I also don’t want them to waste the time and effort it takes to do it.

    You gotta play a little dirty though. At least look at the mud every once in a while.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 months ago

      The problem with this is that Republicans will just give the bill/law a different nickname to avoid using the one that makes them sound bad every time they oppose it: see Obamacare vs. Affordable Care Act.

      • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s really just about what markets well. Come up with a catchy name and that name will stick.

        The Democrats didn’t go far enough accepting the Obamacare name. Obama was all ‘sounds good to me, yes, I care’ or something along those lines when he was asked once, but the Democrats should have officially renamed the bill to Obamacare. Because there’s people who support the ACA but are against Obamacare and don’t realize they’re the same thing. If they’d changed the name there would only be Obamacare and a few of those people, a very slim amount, might realize that the bill thats helping them is Obamacare.

      • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah that’s always gonna happen unfortunately. In a way I don’t even care about that, at least it got past. They can rable rable all they want as long as we’re all better off in the long run.

        • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          I agree, was just pointing out that the GOP love playing these branding games - so it’s hard to pin them down through weaponised legislation unfortunately… they lack the morals and scruples required for them to feel shame or embarrassment.

          Hell, one of their biggest talking points is to call it the Democrat Party (instead of the correct Democratic Party), and watch them put extra emphasis on the last 3 letters too.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    trump did have the balls to use executive order in response to a mass shooting…

    Pretty sure he’s always been against guns tho, most rich people are. They’ve fucked over too many people to want someone to be able to kill them that easily.

    Sure, it eventually got overturned, but it worked for almost a decade before the SC struck it down

    Biden tried to do some, but the ones that actually mandated action never went into effect, and the rest was the usual “looking into” bullshit. You can buy a pistol brace right now, and “ghost guns” are still unserialized.

    So (for completely selfish reasons) trump actually has a pretty good track record on gun control for the last 20 some years of American presidents.

    Which almost everyone willing to vote for him would fucking hate if they weren’t too dumb to notice.

  • glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m assuming OP didn’t take this screenshot…but if you did…why did you screenshot a reply of a screenshot instead of just saving the screenshot?

    My useless conspiracy theory when additional usernames are included in these, they are the ones taking and spreading it.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m torn. This is a bad look, but when my Mom ran for council we had the list too because we wanted to collect the signs afterwards. They’re most of the cost of a local election campaign.

  • sumguyonline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    We need to restore The Constitution to the full Legal wording that it had prior to WW2. No income taxes on individuals at all, corporations paid the entire bill, inflation was illegal, drugs were explicitly LEGAL. The wording is there, but most people don’t know. Turn the Constitution upside down, it’s in Latin. The Republicans, AND Democrats are aware the Constitution was altered illegally and refuse to restore it. Meaning they are both Traitors to the Republic. We are going to need guns soon. The Republic IS captured already, vote them out or force them out. There cannot be any other option or the Republic is dead, and this is a fascist dream boat.

    • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The constitution has never made mention of inflation (a natural function of any economy), or drugs usage, and income tax was allowed by the 16th admendment set in 1913, thus before WW2.

      Rolling back the constitution to pre ww2 would mean removing the voting rights of adults over the age of 18 and allowing people to lose voting rights for unpaid taxes, such as a poll tax. And also DC voters losing their presidential voting elector.

      E.g. you’re suggesting taking away voting power from the american people, which is quite a facist thing to do. Now go take your meds.