711
Sen. Elizabeth Warren's bill would end trading in water futures
(www.motherjones.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
711 points (100.0% liked)
News
23387 readers
2291 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You are the problem.
You’re brainwashed. The system is the problem. They want us peasants playing the imaginary game fighting with each other instead of unifying and making real change. You’re a pawn.
Nice not-fighting there, idiot.
Ad hominem. I don’t participate in fear based politics or hate based discussion. Try again.
Ad hominem is when you try to attack someone's ideas by attacking their character instead. I'm not doing that. I'm just calling you an idiot.
That’s not the definition but using ignorance to fit your narrative just like a politician. Nice.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
They actually made no argument. Just pointless attacking so no logic argument to be a fallacy. Somehow that’s better? Good on them.
If they had made an argument and qualified it with “because you’re an idiot”, that would still be as hominem. Does not have to specifically be about somebody’s character.
Unifying and making real change means coming together and voting against the fascist that's going to make everything worse.
Feeling righteous about not doing the one thing that can actually help is immature and stupid.
Ad hominem. I don’t participate in fear based politics or hate based discussion. Try again.
If you're not either participating in politics by voting, running for office or campaigning; or actively attempting to overthrow the government, then you are accepting whatever government we have and whatever government gets voted in.
There's nothing morally wrong in voting for the less-bad of available. options now, while still working toward changes that give us better choices in the future. If nothing else, if you really cared about how this country and world runs, you would at least be voting for whoever you think will give you even a SLIGHTLY better chance of allowing or enabling the change you want to see.
The absolute least useful thing you could possibly do is throw up your hands and give up and not participate. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what extremes on both ends of the political spectrum want you to do. The fewer people who participate, the easier it is for them to get away with all the money and power.
It’s the opposite. They need your participation to keep the machine churning. The more you care about red vs blue the more money they make and the longer the system prospers with little real change. Another 4 years of Trump is what the Democratic Party needs to get off their asses (no pun intended) and actually give us somebody who’s gonna make real changes.
It’s all business, you’re the consumer and our lives are the currency. If you’re not buying what they’re selling, they’re gonna need to give you what you want.
So close but still framing it as "Blue needs to save us so we need to punish them with Red", which is still red vs blue thinking
In the future scenario you are referring to Trump being elected is not a punishment but a consequence of an indirect action. You incorrectly assume I’m trying to punish Democrats. I don’t care what they do, they’re just not getting my vote until they’re doing what I want them to do. It’s just business to them and should be treated as such. They don’t truly care about you.
You call it consequence, I call it punishment. What's the difference here?
Well then it’s an indirect punishment, but I’m not doing it to directly punish them. You just see it as a punishment.
You are 100% incorrect about this. The system will continue regardless of your participation. Sitting on the sidelines and pouting about the rules being bad does nothing but make you look like a child.
I don’t need to explain to you how change happens, but it’s not only continuing to play their games. Ever heard of a boycott?…
The Democrats aren't making any real change though. They just patch things up for the next Republican to ratchet us further to the right. If we want change we're going to need to change the democratic party first.
And that happens by voting in local elections
Sure. Let me know when Biden is running for my local congressional seat so I can not vote for him there too.
You really are missing the point. Local elections reach up into higher elections. Vote for more liberal mayors, more liberal DAs, more liberal Congresspeople, and more liberal senators. The more liberal they move, the more liberal the overall party becomes.
I'm really not. You're just assuming things.
nope, they're right. I'd vote for Warren and I'd drop my prohibition against voting blue in any race. I don't love warren, but I think she has virtues, I'd be voting for something, and I could at least half hope that the things I'm voting against wouldn't happen if she won. plus she stands a much better chance of actually fucking winning; non-trumpers dont hate her.
I will not under any condition vote biden, and if the blues run him, a D by your name gets you the same treatment as an R in my book.
dangling us over a fascist cliff is not endearing behavior. I will not vote for a terrorist.
You're still the problem even if you pretend to be above it. Trying to prop up your argument with the morality of not choosing the lesser evil does nothing but make you feel better about yourself in "refusing to compromise your principals". This is reality and the reality is we live in a two party system. By not voting for one you are actively supporting the other.
So rather than three paragraphs of idealistic bullshit you should just truncate it down to:
"I support Trump" -melpomenesclevage
I'm not refusing to compromise.warren would be a compromise.
biden is making trump more of a threat to get himself elected. that's not okay. if he doesn't step down, he's okay with that wager, and I don't want him near power.
fascist edging is irresponsible and not something I'll vote for. especially if it doesn't even stop the genocides!
Is voting Warren for president an option? Quit being a jackass.
its not.because of Joe biden.
again, I don't even like biden. don't worry, I'll stay politically engaged; I just won't be wasting my time at a voting booth.
Cool. So what you're saying is you are perfectly ok with Trump being president, just so long as you don't have to vote for Biden. That is the reality we are staring down the barrel of. You might not like having to vote for him, but if there are not enough votes under the Biden column then we will have a second term of Donald Trump. Keep what-ifing and patting yourself on the back.
I'm saying biden is threatening me with a trump presidency by not stepping down. I'm not okay with that.
I thought this was a jokefour years ago,but you people really are just as bad.
when your only point of favor is 'they're worse' you can't really avoid the comparison.
You. Do. Not. Get. To. Choose. Who. Runs. For. President.
Rather than accepting that reality, you're choosing to sit and watch as a Trump presidency happens and say "Whelp. My hands are tied" rather than do your part in voting in the far superior option.
Don't bother. They want fascism, they're just too cowardly to admit it.
There was a primary. She didn't run.
because the party would take it as an insult, and her career would be over.
Sounds like you've made a compelling argument as to why what you're demanding isn't a real option, so you'll need a better excuse as to why you're refusing the only rational option you have.
he's why it wouldn't be an option. the rational option is ignoring your bullshit elections in favor of direct action, the emotional reaction is voting for the red team out of spite.
Are you talking about 2024? Because no there wasn't. No party in the US holds more than a pro forma vote for presidential nominee if they have an incumbent running. Primaries in such years are specifically for lower offices. A President hasn't been primaried in the US since Johnson declined to run again after getting beat horribly in polling and the New Hampshire primary.
Oh, got em on the technicality!
The OP you're replying to was clearly highlighting that Warren isn't a candidate for President, but because you caught that it was a lack of nomination rather than a lack of primary campaign that totally invalidates their point!
Oh did I catch you guys operating in bad faith? Shock.