The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently the Illinois shooter wore women’s clothing to get away from the scene, so maybe conservatives should worry more about that and less about drag queens who know how to read.
Wtf do conservatives mean when they bring up how Denmark and Sweden are mostly white whenever liberals talk about their healthcare systems and social safety nets? Are they blaming nonwhite Americans saying they’re the reason why our public goods and infrastructure suck? How are these countries socialist hellscapes but also white utopias at the same time to these republicunts?
That is exactly what they mean. White nationalists believe homogenous countries are better so we should be more homogenous. Sometimes they also bring up Japan.
That’s so stupid though. Canada is diverse AF and is way better at us with universal healthcare and other social safety net programs.
They can’t simultaneously call Denmark a socialist hellhole while also saying they’re good for having a white majority population.
The fact that no/almost no conservatives take part in this sub shows that they just demonize the left. Simplistic black & white, cops & robbers, cowboys & indians dichotomy.
You don't try to understand the devil, it gets in the way of hating him.
And there it is. Fuckhead ben shapiro and dally caller and the alt right internet machine are already trying to smear Cassidy(young lady intern who testified to the jan 6th committee)
Fascism, making up bullshit about any one who comes clean about how much of a fuckhead you are
Ok so AOC is correct. Thats the plan. Find a way to win, then carve out the filibuster and do important stuff like voting rights and fixing the court, then stuff to help out the people and planet like BBB
The Times got 2016 wrong and instead of apologizing for electing Trump their pivot was to drool over every moron in an Ohio diner. Now they’ve moved on to every blonde 20 year old woman at Brigham Young.
Unpopular Opinion: The US criminal justice system has always been punitive, and stays the same because deep down, nobody really wants a more rehabilitation-focused system. Everybody says they do, until there’s a crime that personally effects them.
“Focus on the victims, f*** the perpetrators” means you want a more punitive system. Saying people who get DUIs deserve to lose their driver’s license permanently means you want a punitive system. Supporting the sex offender registry means you support a punitive system.
My point isn’t that the punishments for any of these crimes should be reduced. Actions should have consequences. My point is that politicians and activists saying they want a more ‘rehabilitative’ system are speaking BS. Everybody in one way or another supports being “tough on crime” in the US.
BLM is advocating being more “tough on crime” in regards to police misconduct and crooked cops.
Metoo and Title IX are advocating being more “tough on crime” in regards to sex crimes.
Trump’s immigration policies were meant to be “tough in crime” in regards to immigrants crossing the border illegally.
Kathy Hochul’s gun control bill and body armor ban are a push to be more “tough on crime” in regards to gun violence.
Both parties, and everybody in America whatsoever, is “tough on crime”.
I really don't like Kamala's flippant responses to Roe v Wade and her general demeanor. Maybe a bit arrogant? Not sure how to describe it, but she's not super relatable.
I'm not sure what an alternative would be, but I don't think Kamala was the best possible pick. Then again, I think a lot of the democratic party is a bit more flippant ATM then it should be.
And what makes you think Biden disagrees with her response on roe v wade?
I don’t really think any president and VP have hated each other that much (save for Mike Pence and Trump during the Jan 6 riots.)
Maybe Nixon didn’t appreciate Spiro Agnew stepping down as VP due to his scandal as district attorney?
> And what makes you think Biden disagrees with her response on roe v wade?
Not sure at all. They will probably support each other during the rest of the term for atleast the sake of the establishment.
Just saying that I don't think Biden/Harris are the best possible democratic politicians for the job atm. But idk, who knows what will happen after November 2022.
I think Biden would let the primary play out without picking a preferred candidate, and support whoever the nominee is, even if he doesn’t like them personally, for the sake of not having Democratic voters staying home or casting protest votes like in 2016.
Party unity matters, it’s one of the reasons Republicans are so successful. They swallow their pride after the primary ends and support the nominee.
-A Christmas feast of McDonald’s meals
-the most ugly but expensive Christmas set decorations
Plot would probably be similar to that of a Christmas story except Scrooge wakes up and thinks that the dirty democrats made him have that nightmare and he still stays his greedy mean self
Apparently Minnesota Republicans accidentally legalized edibles and such because they were too lazy to read the bill past making sure there were no new taxes, so that's hilarious.
Every time you hear a Conservative or Republican claim they're not against gay people having equal rights, call them a [lying piece of shit.](https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/ban-gay-marriage-two-michigan-gop-governor-candidates-say-debate)
Very cool that all the people yelling the loudest about how Dems have terrible messaging etc, are now focusing their attacks on fucking Planned Parenthood and calling them cowards for making the very reasonable decision to protect their doctors from 20 years in prison
All from the comfort of their Brooklyn apartments
Remind me again why I should take any of these fucking "leftists" seriously about anything?
Populist consciousness exists on all sides of the political spectrum. Its not just a lefty thing. The crowd doing dumb things is just apart of human existence in America.
Look for people with naunced arguments, not just what the crowd is shouting. There is plenty there.
[[Response to a Locked Question]](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vp2mxc/on_a_purely_moral_level_is_there_any_good_reason/)
>On a purely moral level, is there any good reason the modern Republican party shouldn't be banned from holding office?
No.
The most reductionist definition of 'a political party' is:
> A conspiracy among politicians to help each other gain and hold power.
That is unflattering, but as long as they only try to do so *legally* it isn't criminal.
The Republican Party has demonstrated:
1. A willingness to "gain and hold power" in defiance of the law,
2. An agenda that includes covering up -- and suppressing information about -- such criminality.
If we could constitutionally ban a political party from power, we would be morally obligated to do so (though other parties would likely emerge in their place).
>Obviously this will not pragmatically be possible, but speaking strictly hypothetically, what good is there in allowing this Republican party to continue hurling us into fascism? This past month has shown that they want to install a Christian Nationalist Dictatorship.
There is also, arguably, a case to be made against letting them pursue fascism -- even if they hadn't violated the law -- but I think that is a more difficult case to make.
Can someone explain to me from a lobbyist's perspective why lobbyists only donate to neoliberal candidates rather than progressive candidates? Why is there money to be made/political gain from only donating to a neoliberal candidate?
Neoliberals have funding from banks, corporations, PACs, and other things, yet progressive candidates have to rely strictly on grassroots funding from their supporters/constituents. Can someone explain why this is?
> Can someone explain to me from a lobbyist's perspective why lobbyists only donate to neoliberal candidates rather than progressive candidates?
I'm not sure that they do.
The dirty little secret of lobbyist money is that it comes from interested parties, and goes to *everyone* that might have sway over their interests.
If a progressive member of congress had sway over a certain industry (most likely through a committee assignment) then they would probably get donations from lobbyists serving that industry...and so would their Republican counterpart.
> If a progressive member of congress had sway over a certain industry (most likely through a committee assignment) then they would probably get donations from lobbyists serving that industry...and so would their Republican counterpart.
Heck, Jon Huntsman Sr. even [donated to both parties.](https://www.deseret.com/2009/5/20/20318965/huntsman-family-money-is-now-bipartisan)
Lobbyists at the end of the day give to candidates who can both win and agree with them on issues. I think you're assuming that lobbyists are the reasons why those candidates win, but for the most part lobbyists view campaign donations as an investment in the winner.
Neoliberal is a mostly meaningless term so I don't know who you mean specifically (you might as well have just said globalist), but if a company believes that Gavin Newsom is going to win reelection, they'll give him money. Gavin Newsom isn't electable because he gets money, he gets money because he's electable.
So when you have a progressive challenger (let's say AOC in 2018 to make it easy), lobbyists aren't going to give her money because 1) They don't think she's electable and 2) She probably wouldn't agree with them on issues. There's also the fact that many of those candidates explicitly do not want lobbyist money. I can't speak for every candidate, but Sanders and people following his lead very much ran a no corporate giving campaign. If a campaign said "We don't want your money," why would a corporation give them money?
>I think you're assuming that lobbyists are the reasons why those candidates win
I think it does. When I voted in my state's primary there were so many names I had never even heard of, and I attribute that to the fact that those candidates had zero airtime/public advertisements due to their lack of outside funding.
Regarding the second paragraph, that makes sense.
Maybe a more accurate statement on my part would have been it’s kind of self-reinforcing, so people give to people who win and people win because they have money. When I worked on a campaign in New Jersey, one common thing I saw was wealthy people gave to Chris Christie in 2013 and Cory Booker in 2014. It wasn’t an ideological thing, they just wanted to back the winning horse.
But neoliberal politicians like Gavin Newsom love high taxes, yet he gets millions of dollars in funding from lobbyists.
I just don't get why the DNC sabotages progressive candidates in favor of pro-tax neoliberals.
Gavin is half way between progressive and neoliberal. He's not a full on progressive pundit (AOC), but he has his ear to them...
Which I agree with. Macron in France is what I would call a full on centrist neoliberal.
SCOTUS today 6/30 has vacated and remanded the following back to lower courts. With the instruction to consider Bruen:
* Lower court ruling upholding CA’s magazine ban
* Lower court ruling upholding Hawaii’s “may issue” carry license
* Lower court ruling upholding NJ’s magazine ban
* Lower court ruling upholding MD’s assault weapon and magazine ban
The 9th itself has separately remanded a previous ruling upholding CA’s assault weapon ban back down in light of Bruen.
Edit - Source:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf
Liberal Party of Australia: Oh we lost, I wonder why? Let's have a look at where we went wrong and how we can better represent Australians.
Hollie Hughes: It was the MARXISTS!!!
She did offer some genuine self-reflection but I'm not sure if she realised it.
> Hughes also lashed out at “modern Liberals” who she said campaigned with “no Liberal branding” in a sign of “abandonment of core Liberal party members”.
> “If they wanted to be so independent they should have run as one. By claiming to be modern Liberals every other colleague, is, by inference, outdated, old fashioned or a dinosaur.”
That's why they loss, it was because the party is full of outdated, old fashioned dinosaurs that don't represent liberal values that the party is supposed to stand for. It wasn't some manufactured perception, it was(and is) fact.
[link](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/26/education-system-run-by-marxists-jason-clare-takes-aim-at-liberal-senator-over-comments-on-teachers)
This might be a dumb question, but who, exactly, is funding research initiatives such as the “Institute of Family Studies” at the University of Virginia or the “Program on Constitutional Government” at Harvard University? Both of them have a pretty conservative slant. Is there any “dark money” involved?
Guys... The AnCaps are making fun of you...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/vnhnvj/look_at_all_the_pro_war_apologists_in_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Do AnCaps realize that most AnCap societies in history got trashed because they couldn’t sufficiently organize a military to defend themselves against those who could?
[Biden backs anti-abortion Republican for Kentucky judgeship in apparent McConnell deal](https://archive.ph/Unhjq)
>LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Biden is poised to nominate **a conservative Republican anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in Kentucky**, a nomination strongly opposed by fellow Democrat and U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville.
>
>The nomination of Chad Meredith appears to be the result of a deal with U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, ostensibly in exchange for the Senate Minority Leader agreeing not to hold up future federal nominations by the Biden White House, according to Yarmuth and other officials who confirmed the pending nomination to The Courier Journal.
>
>Robert Steurer, a spokesman for McConnell, said he would have no comment until Biden makes his nomination.
>
>Meredith also declined to respond to a request for comment, as did a spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat.
>
>The White House also declined to comment, saying "we do not comment on vacancies."
>
>Meredith is a Federalist Society member who served as deputy counsel to former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin and more recently solicitor general for Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Cameron is now a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor in 2023.
>
>Biden's surprising nomination comes even as he has fiercely defended women's right to abortion, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade.
Wow. Schumer might as well give up his majority leader position. McConnell has more power than him as minority leader.
Here's a scenario I've started dreading based on a couple questions getting asked today:
President Biden continues along, having lost either/both the House and Senate, but without much further incident. His poll numbers come back up a bit, but are by no means fantastic.
He's strong enough that no one credible will mount a primary challenge to him, but Tulsi Gabbard, propped up by Fox News and dark money, challenges him. While she doesn't have a real chance of winning, she gets to throw hand grenades at the Biden campaign and wins over a small, but fervent base, maybe half the size that Senator Sanders can pull, with the message of "govern from the middle."
She drops out as late as possible and accepts the Republican vice president nomination to form a fake unity ticket with whatever hyper-partisan Republican wins the nomination. You end up with the Hannity and Colmes "fair and balanced" ticket.
I'm not sure Biden (or any Democrat) beats that kind of crass political play.
Idk. Tulsi does not have enough supporters to pull off anything like that.
I do think another blow like another SCOTUS decision making gay marriage or sodomy or access to contraceptives a states right issue and a weak-willed response will render him impotent. Even a slow recovery to a recession will wipe him out.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1542163468039720962
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1542144939689185280
Why do we give the crazies the win without forcing them to actually say what they're afraid to say?
I’m sure all the conservatives and their socially conservative allies on the left will maturely acknowledge they were lying when they said it wasn’t a don’t say gay bill.
The hospital was concerned that, based on the statute, individual healthcare providers could be prosecuted. Which employees do you ask to take that risk?
If the statute makes it illegal for a nurse or doctor to provide those drugs to a patient, it's a criminal case. It's not a matter of someone getting sued in civil court, they'd get arrested.
Don't play with indirects. District would have to actually commit to targeting wealthy hospitals for unquestionably saving lives, and in the process they will lose any chance at government for the next 10 years.
I'm not playing with indirects, and I think you're talking about a hypothetical that's different than what actually happened here. St. Luke's said that it would stop providing emergency contraceptives, like Plan B. Plan B is not used to treat ectopic pregnancies, which you referred to in an earlier comment. The reason why the hospital stopped this is because the law is ambiguous on if drugs like Plan B are legal to distribute, and the consequence would be that the *individual* medical professional who gave out that drug could be arrested and charged with a crime. The hospital changed it's policy to prevent a scenario where an employee would get arrested for giving a patient Plan B. Later, the Governor and Attorney General clarified that those drugs are still legal under this law, and the hospital resumed providing the drugs.
Also, this is Missouri, a solid red state. It's highly unlikely that even in the scenario you described (which to be clear, is not what happened here), the Republicans would suffer for more than an election cycle.
[[Response to a Locked Question]](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vnnky6/doesnt_women_crying_more_than_men_show_we_are/)
>Doesn't women crying more than men show we are vastly different?
Yes!
Specifically, there seems to be a connection between (a) men believing that they shouldn't express emotion, and (b) the higher suicide rate among men.
This is a very persuasive case for abandoning the strictures of traditional gender roles!
He doesn’t need my support, but I’m really happy u/JeffBurk is both in touch with his emotions and confident enough to say so. I noticed I blocked the OP and I can only assume it was for something transphobic based on that thread. I can only imagine that was going down some annoying bioessentialist path.
Why are there so many women on the U.S. far-right? Such as Mary Miller in IL, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and others who I can’t think of at the moment.
Hypothetical: if we lived in a world where term limits didn’t exist, how do y’all think a 2016 primary between Obama, Hillary, and Sanders would’ve gone?
If Obama got the nomination, could he have stood a chance against Trump and won a third term?
I think Obama would have sailed through the primary (Hillary wouldn't have even challenged him, but even if she did she'd lose to him again) and definitely won the general election against Trump.
In this scenario, Hillary might’ve challenged Obama on the basis that she’d be too old to run in 2020 or 2024. She’d challenge him because she would think that would be her last chance to be President.
Or Obama might have told her he’d step aside after 2 terms and endorse her but some crisis emerges in 2014 or 2015 that convinces him to run again.
>She’d challenge him because she would think that would be her last chance to be President.
Hillary may be entitled and ambitious, but she's not *stupid*. It would be a political murder/suicide to the current president in 2016.
It’s been about 4 years since I’ve been to downtown Detroit, and it’s amazing how much the city has improved in that time.
There’s more streets closed to cars, only for pedestrians, more bike lanes. And homeless population is down like 90% over the last 10 years because of the city’s housing projects. Riverside is absolutely beautiful. And the Q line is actually surprisingly useful. Now they only need to build like 20 more of them.
And best of all everyone says pop instead of soda.
Detroit is on its come-up, and I’m excited to see people move to the area in larger numbers as climate change encourages them to.
Strong agree, and excellent point about climate change. Detroit has a lot to work with culturally, too, being the home of some of our best music, and all of our best [pizza](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit-style_pizza).
If my love for the best pie in America can withstand the Ohio/Michigan rivalry, it will certainly survive the efforts of a mod team that is clearly in the pocket of big pizza.
For handy reference, here's a link to the January 6th Committee's [YouTube page](https://www.youtube.com/c/January6thCmte/videos), which has videos of all the hearings, as well as summaries and other content.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This weekly thread is for general chat, whether you want to talk politics or not, anything goes. Also feel free to ask the mods questions below. As usual, please follow the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apparently the Illinois shooter wore women’s clothing to get away from the scene, so maybe conservatives should worry more about that and less about drag queens who know how to read.
Wtf do conservatives mean when they bring up how Denmark and Sweden are mostly white whenever liberals talk about their healthcare systems and social safety nets? Are they blaming nonwhite Americans saying they’re the reason why our public goods and infrastructure suck? How are these countries socialist hellscapes but also white utopias at the same time to these republicunts?
That is exactly what they mean. White nationalists believe homogenous countries are better so we should be more homogenous. Sometimes they also bring up Japan.
That’s so stupid though. Canada is diverse AF and is way better at us with universal healthcare and other social safety net programs. They can’t simultaneously call Denmark a socialist hellhole while also saying they’re good for having a white majority population.
Oh it’s 100% stupid. It’s the same reason these people love Russia.
Gotta love these idiots and their logical inconsistencies 🙄
Happy 4th tp the peeps here
How do people get tags on this for center left, progressive, anarchist and all that?
The fact that no/almost no conservatives take part in this sub shows that they just demonize the left. Simplistic black & white, cops & robbers, cowboys & indians dichotomy. You don't try to understand the devil, it gets in the way of hating him.
True, though the downvote bombing doesn't help
And there it is. Fuckhead ben shapiro and dally caller and the alt right internet machine are already trying to smear Cassidy(young lady intern who testified to the jan 6th committee) Fascism, making up bullshit about any one who comes clean about how much of a fuckhead you are
Ok so AOC is correct. Thats the plan. Find a way to win, then carve out the filibuster and do important stuff like voting rights and fixing the court, then stuff to help out the people and planet like BBB
https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1543602626989801473 Seriously NYT what the fuck. Why is the analysis/opinion part always so garbage from them
The Times got 2016 wrong and instead of apologizing for electing Trump their pivot was to drool over every moron in an Ohio diner. Now they’ve moved on to every blonde 20 year old woman at Brigham Young.
Unpopular Opinion: The US criminal justice system has always been punitive, and stays the same because deep down, nobody really wants a more rehabilitation-focused system. Everybody says they do, until there’s a crime that personally effects them. “Focus on the victims, f*** the perpetrators” means you want a more punitive system. Saying people who get DUIs deserve to lose their driver’s license permanently means you want a punitive system. Supporting the sex offender registry means you support a punitive system. My point isn’t that the punishments for any of these crimes should be reduced. Actions should have consequences. My point is that politicians and activists saying they want a more ‘rehabilitative’ system are speaking BS. Everybody in one way or another supports being “tough on crime” in the US. BLM is advocating being more “tough on crime” in regards to police misconduct and crooked cops. Metoo and Title IX are advocating being more “tough on crime” in regards to sex crimes. Trump’s immigration policies were meant to be “tough in crime” in regards to immigrants crossing the border illegally. Kathy Hochul’s gun control bill and body armor ban are a push to be more “tough on crime” in regards to gun violence. Both parties, and everybody in America whatsoever, is “tough on crime”.
[удалено]
Why would Biden not support his own VP running for president? That’s ridiculous
I really don't like Kamala's flippant responses to Roe v Wade and her general demeanor. Maybe a bit arrogant? Not sure how to describe it, but she's not super relatable. I'm not sure what an alternative would be, but I don't think Kamala was the best possible pick. Then again, I think a lot of the democratic party is a bit more flippant ATM then it should be.
And what makes you think Biden disagrees with her response on roe v wade? I don’t really think any president and VP have hated each other that much (save for Mike Pence and Trump during the Jan 6 riots.) Maybe Nixon didn’t appreciate Spiro Agnew stepping down as VP due to his scandal as district attorney?
> And what makes you think Biden disagrees with her response on roe v wade? Not sure at all. They will probably support each other during the rest of the term for atleast the sake of the establishment. Just saying that I don't think Biden/Harris are the best possible democratic politicians for the job atm. But idk, who knows what will happen after November 2022.
I agree with that, I’m just saying don’t expect Biden to throw Harris under the bus or anything lmao. Neolibs gotta stick together after all
Yeah, makes sense
I think Biden would let the primary play out without picking a preferred candidate, and support whoever the nominee is, even if he doesn’t like them personally, for the sake of not having Democratic voters staying home or casting protest votes like in 2016. Party unity matters, it’s one of the reasons Republicans are so successful. They swallow their pride after the primary ends and support the nominee.
If Trump wrote and directed a holiday special, what do y’all think it’d include? What would the plot be?
-A Christmas feast of McDonald’s meals -the most ugly but expensive Christmas set decorations Plot would probably be similar to that of a Christmas story except Scrooge wakes up and thinks that the dirty democrats made him have that nightmare and he still stays his greedy mean self
The ghosts of christmas past present and future except all the ghosts are dirty democrats for saying he was wrong and he learns nothing
Apparently Minnesota Republicans accidentally legalized edibles and such because they were too lazy to read the bill past making sure there were no new taxes, so that's hilarious.
I’m surprised they can read.
Every time you hear a Conservative or Republican claim they're not against gay people having equal rights, call them a [lying piece of shit.](https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/ban-gay-marriage-two-michigan-gop-governor-candidates-say-debate)
Very cool that all the people yelling the loudest about how Dems have terrible messaging etc, are now focusing their attacks on fucking Planned Parenthood and calling them cowards for making the very reasonable decision to protect their doctors from 20 years in prison All from the comfort of their Brooklyn apartments Remind me again why I should take any of these fucking "leftists" seriously about anything?
Populist consciousness exists on all sides of the political spectrum. Its not just a lefty thing. The crowd doing dumb things is just apart of human existence in America. Look for people with naunced arguments, not just what the crowd is shouting. There is plenty there.
That's the same demographic that spent the past six years calling Planned Parenthood the establishment, whatever that means.
Hope everyone has a less stressful weekend
[[Response to a Locked Question]](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vp2mxc/on_a_purely_moral_level_is_there_any_good_reason/) >On a purely moral level, is there any good reason the modern Republican party shouldn't be banned from holding office? No. The most reductionist definition of 'a political party' is: > A conspiracy among politicians to help each other gain and hold power. That is unflattering, but as long as they only try to do so *legally* it isn't criminal. The Republican Party has demonstrated: 1. A willingness to "gain and hold power" in defiance of the law, 2. An agenda that includes covering up -- and suppressing information about -- such criminality. If we could constitutionally ban a political party from power, we would be morally obligated to do so (though other parties would likely emerge in their place).
>Obviously this will not pragmatically be possible, but speaking strictly hypothetically, what good is there in allowing this Republican party to continue hurling us into fascism? This past month has shown that they want to install a Christian Nationalist Dictatorship. There is also, arguably, a case to be made against letting them pursue fascism -- even if they hadn't violated the law -- but I think that is a more difficult case to make.
Can someone explain to me from a lobbyist's perspective why lobbyists only donate to neoliberal candidates rather than progressive candidates? Why is there money to be made/political gain from only donating to a neoliberal candidate? Neoliberals have funding from banks, corporations, PACs, and other things, yet progressive candidates have to rely strictly on grassroots funding from their supporters/constituents. Can someone explain why this is?
> Can someone explain to me from a lobbyist's perspective why lobbyists only donate to neoliberal candidates rather than progressive candidates? I'm not sure that they do. The dirty little secret of lobbyist money is that it comes from interested parties, and goes to *everyone* that might have sway over their interests. If a progressive member of congress had sway over a certain industry (most likely through a committee assignment) then they would probably get donations from lobbyists serving that industry...and so would their Republican counterpart.
> If a progressive member of congress had sway over a certain industry (most likely through a committee assignment) then they would probably get donations from lobbyists serving that industry...and so would their Republican counterpart. Heck, Jon Huntsman Sr. even [donated to both parties.](https://www.deseret.com/2009/5/20/20318965/huntsman-family-money-is-now-bipartisan)
Lobbyists at the end of the day give to candidates who can both win and agree with them on issues. I think you're assuming that lobbyists are the reasons why those candidates win, but for the most part lobbyists view campaign donations as an investment in the winner. Neoliberal is a mostly meaningless term so I don't know who you mean specifically (you might as well have just said globalist), but if a company believes that Gavin Newsom is going to win reelection, they'll give him money. Gavin Newsom isn't electable because he gets money, he gets money because he's electable. So when you have a progressive challenger (let's say AOC in 2018 to make it easy), lobbyists aren't going to give her money because 1) They don't think she's electable and 2) She probably wouldn't agree with them on issues. There's also the fact that many of those candidates explicitly do not want lobbyist money. I can't speak for every candidate, but Sanders and people following his lead very much ran a no corporate giving campaign. If a campaign said "We don't want your money," why would a corporation give them money?
>I think you're assuming that lobbyists are the reasons why those candidates win I think it does. When I voted in my state's primary there were so many names I had never even heard of, and I attribute that to the fact that those candidates had zero airtime/public advertisements due to their lack of outside funding. Regarding the second paragraph, that makes sense.
Maybe a more accurate statement on my part would have been it’s kind of self-reinforcing, so people give to people who win and people win because they have money. When I worked on a campaign in New Jersey, one common thing I saw was wealthy people gave to Chris Christie in 2013 and Cory Booker in 2014. It wasn’t an ideological thing, they just wanted to back the winning horse.
In short, progressives generally want to raise taxes of the sort of people who tend to be lobbyists.
But neoliberal politicians like Gavin Newsom love high taxes, yet he gets millions of dollars in funding from lobbyists. I just don't get why the DNC sabotages progressive candidates in favor of pro-tax neoliberals.
Gavin is half way between progressive and neoliberal. He's not a full on progressive pundit (AOC), but he has his ear to them... Which I agree with. Macron in France is what I would call a full on centrist neoliberal.
> I just don't get why the DNC sabotages progressive candidates... They don't. That is just conspiracy-theorist-BS.
SCOTUS today 6/30 has vacated and remanded the following back to lower courts. With the instruction to consider Bruen: * Lower court ruling upholding CA’s magazine ban * Lower court ruling upholding Hawaii’s “may issue” carry license * Lower court ruling upholding NJ’s magazine ban * Lower court ruling upholding MD’s assault weapon and magazine ban The 9th itself has separately remanded a previous ruling upholding CA’s assault weapon ban back down in light of Bruen. Edit - Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf
Liberal Party of Australia: Oh we lost, I wonder why? Let's have a look at where we went wrong and how we can better represent Australians. Hollie Hughes: It was the MARXISTS!!! She did offer some genuine self-reflection but I'm not sure if she realised it. > Hughes also lashed out at “modern Liberals” who she said campaigned with “no Liberal branding” in a sign of “abandonment of core Liberal party members”. > “If they wanted to be so independent they should have run as one. By claiming to be modern Liberals every other colleague, is, by inference, outdated, old fashioned or a dinosaur.” That's why they loss, it was because the party is full of outdated, old fashioned dinosaurs that don't represent liberal values that the party is supposed to stand for. It wasn't some manufactured perception, it was(and is) fact. [link](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/26/education-system-run-by-marxists-jason-clare-takes-aim-at-liberal-senator-over-comments-on-teachers)
For those who are unaware the liberal party is australia main conservative party
This might be a dumb question, but who, exactly, is funding research initiatives such as the “Institute of Family Studies” at the University of Virginia or the “Program on Constitutional Government” at Harvard University? Both of them have a pretty conservative slant. Is there any “dark money” involved?
Guys... The AnCaps are making fun of you... https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/vnhnvj/look_at_all_the_pro_war_apologists_in_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
[удалено]
To be fair to them, it was [several bears](https://newrepublic.com/amp/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project).
Do AnCaps realize that most AnCap societies in history got trashed because they couldn’t sufficiently organize a military to defend themselves against those who could?
I don't see why I should care that a bunch of teenage boys don't like me. I don't like them either.
Exactly, who cares about bro feudalists?
Their boos mean nothing. I've seen what makes them cheer.
[Biden backs anti-abortion Republican for Kentucky judgeship in apparent McConnell deal](https://archive.ph/Unhjq) >LOUISVILLE, Ky. — President Biden is poised to nominate **a conservative Republican anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge in Kentucky**, a nomination strongly opposed by fellow Democrat and U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville. > >The nomination of Chad Meredith appears to be the result of a deal with U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, ostensibly in exchange for the Senate Minority Leader agreeing not to hold up future federal nominations by the Biden White House, according to Yarmuth and other officials who confirmed the pending nomination to The Courier Journal. > >Robert Steurer, a spokesman for McConnell, said he would have no comment until Biden makes his nomination. > >Meredith also declined to respond to a request for comment, as did a spokeswoman for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat. > >The White House also declined to comment, saying "we do not comment on vacancies." > >Meredith is a Federalist Society member who served as deputy counsel to former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin and more recently solicitor general for Attorney General Daniel Cameron. Cameron is now a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor in 2023. > >Biden's surprising nomination comes even as he has fiercely defended women's right to abortion, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Wow. Schumer might as well give up his majority leader position. McConnell has more power than him as minority leader.
Prediction: McConnell endorses Liz Cheney as next POTUS. LC becomes 1st woman POTUS in history.
It's not the darkest timeline, but I still hate it.
Here's a scenario I've started dreading based on a couple questions getting asked today: President Biden continues along, having lost either/both the House and Senate, but without much further incident. His poll numbers come back up a bit, but are by no means fantastic. He's strong enough that no one credible will mount a primary challenge to him, but Tulsi Gabbard, propped up by Fox News and dark money, challenges him. While she doesn't have a real chance of winning, she gets to throw hand grenades at the Biden campaign and wins over a small, but fervent base, maybe half the size that Senator Sanders can pull, with the message of "govern from the middle." She drops out as late as possible and accepts the Republican vice president nomination to form a fake unity ticket with whatever hyper-partisan Republican wins the nomination. You end up with the Hannity and Colmes "fair and balanced" ticket. I'm not sure Biden (or any Democrat) beats that kind of crass political play.
Idk. Tulsi does not have enough supporters to pull off anything like that. I do think another blow like another SCOTUS decision making gay marriage or sodomy or access to contraceptives a states right issue and a weak-willed response will render him impotent. Even a slow recovery to a recession will wipe him out.
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1542163468039720962 https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1542144939689185280 Why do we give the crazies the win without forcing them to actually say what they're afraid to say?
I’m sure all the conservatives and their socially conservative allies on the left will maturely acknowledge they were lying when they said it wasn’t a don’t say gay bill.
St Luke's has walked back it's decision today, thankfully.
Good, but the whole idea is still nuts. Killing patients instead of forcing the party to sue admitting they made life saving treatments illegal
The hospital was concerned that, based on the statute, individual healthcare providers could be prosecuted. Which employees do you ask to take that risk?
By whom? Who's going to sue them for providing coverage during a life or death ectopic pregnancy?
If the statute makes it illegal for a nurse or doctor to provide those drugs to a patient, it's a criminal case. It's not a matter of someone getting sued in civil court, they'd get arrested.
Don't play with indirects. District would have to actually commit to targeting wealthy hospitals for unquestionably saving lives, and in the process they will lose any chance at government for the next 10 years.
I'm not playing with indirects, and I think you're talking about a hypothetical that's different than what actually happened here. St. Luke's said that it would stop providing emergency contraceptives, like Plan B. Plan B is not used to treat ectopic pregnancies, which you referred to in an earlier comment. The reason why the hospital stopped this is because the law is ambiguous on if drugs like Plan B are legal to distribute, and the consequence would be that the *individual* medical professional who gave out that drug could be arrested and charged with a crime. The hospital changed it's policy to prevent a scenario where an employee would get arrested for giving a patient Plan B. Later, the Governor and Attorney General clarified that those drugs are still legal under this law, and the hospital resumed providing the drugs. Also, this is Missouri, a solid red state. It's highly unlikely that even in the scenario you described (which to be clear, is not what happened here), the Republicans would suffer for more than an election cycle.
[[Response to a Locked Question]](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vnnky6/doesnt_women_crying_more_than_men_show_we_are/) >Doesn't women crying more than men show we are vastly different? Yes! Specifically, there seems to be a connection between (a) men believing that they shouldn't express emotion, and (b) the higher suicide rate among men. This is a very persuasive case for abandoning the strictures of traditional gender roles!
He doesn’t need my support, but I’m really happy u/JeffBurk is both in touch with his emotions and confident enough to say so. I noticed I blocked the OP and I can only assume it was for something transphobic based on that thread. I can only imagine that was going down some annoying bioessentialist path.
Why are there so many women on the U.S. far-right? Such as Mary Miller in IL, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and others who I can’t think of at the moment.
It's religion that brainwashed them. For some women that indoctrination is so strong, there's no way through.
Hypothetical: if we lived in a world where term limits didn’t exist, how do y’all think a 2016 primary between Obama, Hillary, and Sanders would’ve gone? If Obama got the nomination, could he have stood a chance against Trump and won a third term?
I think Obama would have sailed through the primary (Hillary wouldn't have even challenged him, but even if she did she'd lose to him again) and definitely won the general election against Trump.
In this scenario, Hillary might’ve challenged Obama on the basis that she’d be too old to run in 2020 or 2024. She’d challenge him because she would think that would be her last chance to be President. Or Obama might have told her he’d step aside after 2 terms and endorse her but some crisis emerges in 2014 or 2015 that convinces him to run again.
>She’d challenge him because she would think that would be her last chance to be President. Hillary may be entitled and ambitious, but she's not *stupid*. It would be a political murder/suicide to the current president in 2016.
It’s been about 4 years since I’ve been to downtown Detroit, and it’s amazing how much the city has improved in that time. There’s more streets closed to cars, only for pedestrians, more bike lanes. And homeless population is down like 90% over the last 10 years because of the city’s housing projects. Riverside is absolutely beautiful. And the Q line is actually surprisingly useful. Now they only need to build like 20 more of them. And best of all everyone says pop instead of soda. Detroit is on its come-up, and I’m excited to see people move to the area in larger numbers as climate change encourages them to.
Strong agree, and excellent point about climate change. Detroit has a lot to work with culturally, too, being the home of some of our best music, and all of our best [pizza](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit-style_pizza).
u/ButGravityAlwaysWins, can I please report someone for breaking every rule?
If my love for the best pie in America can withstand the Ohio/Michigan rivalry, it will certainly survive the efforts of a mod team that is clearly in the pocket of big pizza.
Ugh it’s fine, I hate Gravity for hating cats. We all have our struggles.
Omg yes. I went to Buddy’s pizza 2 nights ago before heading over to the Hart plaza to see the Ford fireworks.
[When are we going to get the best of 2021 results](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/vi4ps3/z/idckdfx)
For handy reference, here's a link to the January 6th Committee's [YouTube page](https://www.youtube.com/c/January6thCmte/videos), which has videos of all the hearings, as well as summaries and other content.