This is a dangerously strong and broad sentiment to present as a hard rule. This is how propaganda is created.

Although in the example you gave those four did literally give the bill exactly enough votes to pass, so… uhoh

Thanks. That’s bad to be clear, but 4 out of 213 doesn’t seem worthy of all the displeasure you’ve stated.

I’ve heard about the cabinet confirmations. What else is there?

I’m not doing either of those things. I’m pointing out that things staying the same is preferable to them getting worse. Of course positive change is also better than stagnation. Those are both true. It’s a pretty simple scale IMO, progress > stagnation > regress. I don’t see where the misunderstanding is coming from; do you think I wouldn’t prefer progress?

I too am disappointed at the lack of resistance from the supposed opposition party. Still not the same thing though.

Do you understand what is going on in our government right now? The scale or even intentions are not the same in the slightest and are entirely unprecedented. You could be disappeared tomorrow by plainclothes lackeys and sent to an El Salvadorian death camp with no due process. That is no longer an exaggeration. They’re gutting nearly all government services and purging anyone who does not ideologically agree with them. They’ve destroyed our digital security and have opened the information of millions of Americans up to foreign and domestic influence. I hate the media too but this is not business as usual.

I wouldn’t say nothing, but yes your core argument is true. That doesn’t invalidate what I said however.

Given the scale of harm is quite different, I don’t think describing it as merely a different type of harm is accurate.

The “we” in their argument is ambiguous as to the size of the group it’s referring to, so no, I’m not misconstruing anything. But it’s certainly more than one person (themself). Their argument is that the number of people getting hurt expanded when Trump was elected. Saying they don’t want that is therefore equivalent to saying that they don’t want more people getting hurt.

Interesting point but you’re trying very hard to twist “I don’t want any more people to get hurt” into a bad thing. I don’t think these sorts of word games or speculation where you hammer someone’s intentions into a mold that you can bash is healthy discussion.

But that is literally superior to making things worse. It’s not about feeling anything, it’s about outcomes.

Really?

“shocking”

You too lmao Europe’s not far behind the US

Because “national security” means protection from external threats. Internal matters would be “national health”, or similar.

Yesss make them work for it

Good point! The amount of crackpot “here’s how we can fix society” ideas I’ve come up with that are completely ruined by the existence of children is honestly crazy. I know “protect the kids!!” has been co-opted for some rather unsavory agendas, but it really is important, moreso even than we often consider.

You could cover this pretty accurately by making being in public without vaccinations count as reckless endangerment. In theory, an antivaxx person in isolation is not the issue. The issue is them exposing other people.

A GOP-led procedural vote in the House failed after nine Republicans joined Democrats

Pog

I’m gonna start keeping track of who from each party is actually resisting

They feel that they can ignore it because they can ignore it. Stop letting them!