this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
9 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5699 readers
2954 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, while I sort of agree with you on one hand, on the other hand I saw conservatives try to overthrow democracy and successfully overturn roe v wade recently so....
Yeah but extremes on either side of the spectrum try to overthrow democracy. We have to fight the extremes but not the whole political orientation.
I just looked up Roe V Wade (I'm not from the US) and it appears that it was recently overturned by a federal court. A court does not make the laws, so overturning an older case means, as fas as I know, correcting the decision on laws that they have to follow, no matter if they like it or not. If you want a law on abortion, you should get the parliament to pass such a law IMO.
Generally, if someone's methdology is unacceptable, that doesn't invalidate their political views and certainly not the whole political orientation.
Well you say that but in recent memory only one side actually has tried. I don’t think it’s really fair to “both sides” this when one has and one hasn’t.
Its fair no neither side. Just because right extremists do bad stuff where you live and left extremists don't seem to exist or be as prelevant where you live, that doesn't make the whole political direction (e.g. left-leaning, right-leaning) invalid. That just makes extremists bad. That would be like saying "Staling = bad, therefore every non-condervative = bad".
It's not like "the rights" or "the lefts" have tried to overthrow the government. More like: people whose views are so extremely right/left that they are antidemocratic have tried to overthrow democracy.
It definitely does. A conservative in the United States is not the same as a conservative in the EU so in the context of one country, it’s entirely accurate. You can’t project a left/right spectrum globally when each country or group of countries have their own delineations on what constitutes “Liberal” or “Conservative”. One country could have a “conservative” ideology that’s considered entirely “liberal” by another country.
Except they did. “The rights” in the U.S. attempted to overthrow the duly elected president elect and install the opposition into power. It was a comically piss poor attempt, but an attempt it was nonetheless.
... which is why find these generalized statements on political orientations stupid. At least the girl in the post could have said "Republican" or sth.
No, it's not "the rights" who did that. It was a group of people from the right side of the spectrum, presumably the more extreme ones who did that. You can't generalize every condervative person into that group.
(Although the fact that it was actually Trump who called for the attack is highly problematic, even more so the fact that he now is again up as a candidate elected by his party).
The court does make the laws now because a conservative Congress illegally delayed SCOTUS appointments and rushed others so the conservative president was able to stack it with wildly unqualified conservative justices. Their guy also did an insurrection. 1/3 of the court are appointments from an insurrectionist who tried to bribe a foreign country to smear his political opponent. All conservatives are totally fine with all of that.
What's a SCOTUS appointment if you dont mind me asking?
Seems like a questionable system though, right? Im vaguely familar on how partys in the US can appoint judges for life as soon as others leave...
Isn't this favorable appointing of judges done on both sides, depnding on the governing patty (aka Democrats and Republicans) or what is the scandal about what happened under Trump?
Supreme Court of The United States appointment. Presidents appoint a candidate they like, congress greenlights their ascent to the position.
Oh highly questionable, it's caused a lot of people to rethink the safety of lifetime appointments. But there are avenues to try, someone doesn't have to retire or die, the number of SCOTUS judges can be raised and then you can appoint new judges, but then so can the next party and so on so forth, or at least they tell us that the threat of 'the other side' packing the courts is too much of a danger for their own party to pack the courts
It is done on both sides, except both sides haven't had an equal chance to make appointments due to life span of existing judges and the then Senate Majority Leader (senator who is appointed the head of that ruling body when their party takes a majority in that body) in 2008 blocked all Supreme Court appointments that came up for all 8 years of the Obama administration. That was Mitch McConnell, and he, and his party, blocked appointment of new judges by just never allowing the motion to be voted on, as the Republicans held the senate 2 years into Obama presidency (when some seats opened) and as such their majority leader gets to decide the docket of what will be voted on in the senate and he chose to never once allowed SCOTUS appointee motions to reach the floor.
Thanks, this clears things up for me
Its easy to have this opinion when you're not a US citizen, you don't have the same frame of reference as we do for a conversation involving our own government. Especially considering that in the US left/right dont even exist, we have right/far right, there is no left in our country, this is just how the conversation is framed so we can trick ourselves into thinking that there is a more progessive party to vote for. When an American says "right" or "conservative" they mean the people who identify as such in our country, those people are actually extremely far right, usually Christian nationalists. We essentially have a government that is setup so your vote is for "The continuing unrestricted rampage of capitalism on the working class" and "were going to see what a dictatorship by an orange dipshit is like"
I've now informed myself on the Republicans and the Democrats views and policies and the Republucans indeed seem quite right, more so than I thought. My stance on this post is still the same but I guess this helps to put things into perspective...
Please show me an example of extreme Democrats trying to overthrow the US. This just isn't the case and there is no "both sides" on this issue. The current conservative party in the US is not actually a conservative party. It is fear mongering bigotry and authoritarianism. Full stop. So stop acting like anyone is against the standard "progressive vs conservative" debate. We are outside of that normal.
The democrats are by no means an extreme party. Those are not left extremists.
YOU are outside of that normal. But then, why do you project the disagreement with one party to the "standart progressive vs conservative debate". You can't take one party from one country that you dislike and genelarize that "condervative=bad". That would be like saying "China's social credit system is bad, therefore leftists are bad". No!
By no means do I support the Republican party or their views but claiming conservative to be illegitimate just because your only choice of a conservative party is bad is so strange.
Does the fact that we think even "regular" conservatives have shitty beliefs make you feel better? Do conservatives want to fund public services? Do they want to reduce police funding? Do they want to reduce inequity and tax the rich? Trying to "conserve" the shitty past that we all share is a fucking shit ideology.
I could already imagine what you think of their ideology. The problem I have is with labeling a general political orientation as illegitimate.
They probably don't want to increase their funds. But yeah, public services exist for a reason. How many funds they should get it a debate to be had.
Probably not (?), though would you mind explaining what the whole police defunding demands are about? Is it just currently viewed as a waste of money or what?
They probably dont want to tax the rich more than they currently do, but yeah they would AFAIK still tax them (and tax them more than normal people). Inequality is a moral-based question again. You may find it fair if everyone has the same amount of money, someone else might find it fair that you get more money the more you earn, etc.