The options are either personally fix our entire country or shut up and follow orders? This unwillingness to accept criticism of the Democratic Party is exactly why people like me feel unrepresented by it. We see a party working against our interests and a fan base frothing at the mouth anytime anyone dares speak against them.
Have you ever complained about the Republicans? If so, why don’t you stop complaining about it and personally fix the country?
Wow, all two of them? Get a higher bar. I’m not even young.
All three Democratic presidents I’ve been alive for have been pretty bad too. Turns out I’m not represented very well in our plutocracy, and it’s pretty tiring to hear the endless defense of the wealthy elite that actively work against all of us.
Choosing not to prop Trump up as a pied piper during the primaries would also have been a good step. And putting anyone but one of the most unelectable politicians against him would also have been a good idea.
“Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to inform you of a fire that has broken out at the promises of…”
Sure doesn’t help that the billionaires win no matter the outcome.
Lol, are you seriously still peddling the “if you don’t vote for Hillary you’re sexist” bullshit? It was pathetically transparent back in 2016, it’s downright delusional now.
Couldn’t have anything to do with her being an unapologetic war hawk. Or a Clinton (the last one helped set up our economy to crash in 2008). Or a weak candidate with weak positions pandering to the middle even during the primary instead of pushing left. Or an entitled narcissist who colluded with the DNC leadership to put their thumb on the scale. Or a petulant child who was too busy smearing her primary opponent even after the general was over to take responsibility for the fact that she and her campaign directly gave us Trump by propping him up as a pied piper.
It’s not as stark of a difference, but in western Washington we’ve also had a noticeably warm winter. Really just feels like a continuation of fall. Almost the entire winter we’ve been around 40-50 °F, only had one cold snap that even got down to freezing, into the 20s for 4 days or so.
The more positive spin version is that they test freedom of (and from) religion to ensure it is being applied broadly and not solely for Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism.
Officially they’re on hiatus. They originally said they were retiring the line, but then changed their tune and stated that the Bolt line will return after they can implement their new EV battery tech in them. I believe the statements have been imprecise about when that will be, but potentially sometime in 2025 (meaning the 2026 model). That’s assuming no delays or changes to the plan.
If you want a new Bolt without waiting for the revived line, I’d think about acting soon. They’re moving really quickly in my area. I’m really happy with the EUV so far, but I’m still only at like 250 miles. I didn’t go for the Premier since I don’t care about adaptive cruise control or their “Super Cruise” self driving thing.
I’m about 3 weeks into my Bolt EUV ownership. Literally never considered any of their other EVs based on price alone. Really happy with my Bolt EUV so far, and really glad I snagged one before they stopped making them. For all their talk of limited demand, there was a lot of competition in my area to get one.
One day nationally is the only answer.
IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
Look, I don’t think we disagree about racism in this country or how bad slavery is or that Thomas Jefferson was a slaver jackass. But I am tired of people refusing to learn more about the context of that clause and arguing in favor of the slavers, even inadvertantly.
Counting slaves when they couldn’t vote was bad for slaves while being good for slavers. The South took your stance, that they should count in full. The North took the opposite, largely for political benefit but they happened to also be backing the morally correct position, that slaves shouldn’t count for representation in the House if they can’t vote because it only inflates the power of slavers.
The North first tried to take the stance that if the South wanted slaves to contribute to their House representation, they also counted towards counts for taxation. This clause was the compromise of the South taking on the tax burden of 3/5 of slaves in exchange for 3/5 of the political representation of slaves.
You really shouldn’t be arguing semantics when your first comment is just deadass wrong. The clause doesn’t mention race, period. Frederick Douglass points out very clearly why that is ultimately a benefit for the oppressed black population, giving greater power to states that had free black people. Maybe you shouldn’t be taking a stance against a man who himself escaped slavery. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
You realize you’re taking his side on this argument, right? He argued against this clause since it hurt the South, he wanted slaves to count in full so it would bolster the political power of slave owners. Accepting it was his compromise in order to also lower the tax burden of slave states.
Yeah, because the clause doesn’t distinguish based on race like you said it did. It was on freedom. And it served to limit the political power of slavers.
Everyone always brings it up as if the clause was some evil thing when it was in fact a fight against the evil of slavery.
I think you should read it again. He’s saying even taking the worst possible interpretation, the clause promotes freedom for slaves.
I’m not. I’m objecting to your saying the clause was racist when its very purpose was anti-slavery. Slavery is the thing that is racist.
I think a Civil War era leader on abolitionism and civil rights would know what he’s talking about when he describes the clause as supporting his cause.
Because it’s not the clause that invokes racism, it’s the practice of slavery. The clause, as Douglass points out, promotes freedom.
That one is a lot more nuanced. It distinguishes based on freedom not race. Obviously the US itself was extraordinarily racist and the practice of chattel slavery abhorrent. But that isn’t what that clause says.
I always liked Frederick Douglass’s take on the clause:
But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer—It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of “two-fifths” of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at its worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote.
Yeah, could potentially make a lot of states unsafe to go to because you “broke” a law you weren’t subject to.
The difference is that it’s the same “you have to make the safe choice now and you’ll get to make things better later” every single cycle. Many of us see it all as a facade that will never end, and watch the Democratic Party actively work against our interests in the meantime.
But we can’t ever dare express discontent online without vitriol from people who can’t seem to handle the fact that others might not be convinced by “I’m not a Republican” anymore.