We should commend the Democrats for their patriotism in making sure that their head of state isn't the least popular entity in US politics.
You're skipping over the fact that they all, like you, blame the Republicans. Democratic voters, convinced Republicans were causing the shutdown by insisting on taking away people's healthcare, were enthused to vote.So your argument here is that in order to enthuse federal workers for the Democrats, the Democrats instigated a shutdown that... sacrificed those federal workers' financial safety by ensuring they would not be paid for weeks and be put under threat of being fired?Likewise, note that one of the key Democratic Party folds was Tim Kaine of... oh, let me see, Virginia. Precisely because he wanted to secure safety for federal employees.
So now we've put that to bed, maybe you don't need to waste everyone's time on it any more.
Sure. Unfortunately, the record clearly shows that everyone here has a lot of criticisms to make of the Democrats, but in fact you reliably defend Republicans in pretty much any and every case imaginable, even when they are particularly obviously at fault.
As a note, that's not what the Democrats negotiated. The party didn't agree to anything, enough of their senators folded to collapse the party's position.
But that's the rub, isn't it?
There is a difference between middle class people overspending on things and people like the Trumps or Musks investing in like 20 things and only needing one of things things to hit; they can't be successful if they only try on bet on a few things that they think will actually hit.
I guarantee I criticize Republicans at a higher rate than you criticize Democrats. I laughed on the last page when someone said that everyone agrees that Dems are evil, I wondered if he had ran that past you first.
That's not pride. Pride isn't thinking you're better at things than other people, everyone is better at things than other people, you have to be negatively delusional to imagine yourself worse in all cases, and recognizing your skills is honest and healthy. Pride is thinking you're more important than other people, and I fully recognize that no matter how unbelievably, incredibly, immeasurably better than you I am at arguing, it will never make me more important or valuable than you.
Ah, so you're just working off a really bizarre personal (or religious) definition again. That is not what pride means. Not to gay people involved in Pride, nor to most regular users of the English language. Perhaps it is within Catholic parlance, but it sure isn't the standard.
A person calling themselves a "proud American" is a statement of supremacy. They aren't a supremacist specifically if they aren't basing their worldview or policy preferences on that, but it is a statement of supremacy, and is simultaneously wrong and bad.
I disagree, the democrats got a few female governors, congressional reps, and a NYC mayor out of it. Plus, many liberal ballot issues and state seats. They ended it before the Republicans had the chance to flip the script on them, and make it either both sides bad, or worse, the democrats are at fault.
en.wikipedia.org
That's strange, considering one can readily find examples dating back many decades.
And yet the civil rights movement (as well as popular culture, see James Brown) was constantly using the term 'pride' not to talk about being 'more important', but to talk about being deserving of equal treatment and embracing one's culture. Similar to how it was adopted by the gay community-- a direct response to persecution and shaming.
You may not think it does. But when you're insisting on such a bizarre definition, one that isn't widely shared outside of your particular religious group, we have to consider the possibility your understanding has been shaped by Catholicism. And Catholicism has a pretty terrible relationship with the idea of feeling OK about oneself.
Honestly, this sentence just makes me quite sad for you.
Ah yes, a hypothetical. Presumably because you can't readily point to many on the forum - whereas I would have no problem detailing criticisms I've made of the Democrats.
Ah, look, once gain you have have reached for a semantic argument!
Did you just google the early pride movement and write down the names you saw, assuming it would work out? What writings are you referring to? The fame is for saying "gay pride", "fight repression of erotic expression", and then pieing people in the face. I'm not certain the "writings" you reference even exist, as though those two were putting out philosophical treatises about their movement to find out precisely what the word pride meant to them in that time.
Did you know that this subforum is called "current events" now, and one of the few enforced rules is to not drag up dead arguments across threads in perpetuity?
How dare I argue on the basis of the meaning of words!
This isn't true, because I can think of at least one user who waged a perpetual, grinding war on 2-3 issues across multiple threads repeating the same, exhausting shit for five goddamn years and no-one stepped in to stop it. The ocean of smaller, occasional references lies even less tackled. The rule isn't absolute, it's there to stop disruption, harassment and generally being a dick. Limited, reasonable and responsible reference to relevant material is fine. And that's basically what the mod was getting at the last time an aggrieved user tried to claim that as a means to get others punished.
Semantic arguments are almost invariably sophistry.
His pet Justices functionally made him immune to the law wholesale. What I find hilarious about that is many of Trump's followers want Obama arrested for reasons that are generally made up BS, that even if true Obama would be immune to under protections SCOTUS invented whole cloth for Trump.
That's not true - Republicans don't get everything they want when they're in the minority, in the minority they mostly prevent movement the other way. It's more like a political ratchet - a Dem minority allows GOP to freely move to the right, a GOP minority stops movement back.
It's arguably worse than that: via presidential pardons (and assuming they stay in the president's good books), the entire executive branch is immune to the law.
