• 1 Post
  • 530 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2025

help-circle



  • I don’t like Obama much - his drone strikes and war-hawkish policy nor bailing out the banks when he had them over a barrel, but i’m tired of this bullshit narrative.

    House control: yes, no question.

    Senate control: barely.

    Obama would not have even been able to pass his bank robbery ‘stimulus’ without three Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for it in early 2009. Yes, very much a man with ‘total control’ of the government…

    Obama had just 4 months with senate control, and that whole time it was on a knife edge. 60 (of 100) votes are needed to bring legislation to the floor to even be voted on without filibuster. So for ‘total control’ a party needs 60 seats/votes in the senate. The dems had 57 in Jan 2009 at the start of Obama’s congress, with 2 independents (Bernie and Joe Liebermann) who caucused with them, taking them to 59. Republicans had 41.

    That 59 included Ted Kennedy whom had a seizure during an Inauguration lunch of Obama’s (he was privately dying of brain cancer) and he never returned to vote in the senate - dropping the number to 58. Also, Al Franken was not seated until july due to a very close election in his seat and multiple recounts - until then the number was 57.

    Long story short by September 24th they finally had 60 seats… But democrats are not a monolith. Just as there are Manchins and Sinemas and other ‘Democrats’ in recent memory that are barely left of Ted Cruz, there were several of similar ilk back then like Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson - and their independent caucus member Joe Lieberman, mentioned earlier - who all fought against much of Obama’s legislation, for example with respect to Obamacare they quashed any chance of a public option and single payer.

    So did he have control: technically, briefly. Could Obama just run through any legislation he wanted during that time? Absolutely fucking not.










  • Its not real so empathy is irrelevant?

    Its not a joke about wordplay because if you take away the dark humour context - the loss, the reaction of the mother - it’s got nothing other than ‘lol a word has two meanings’.

    If the mum was cut out of the last panel - then yep you could pass it off as absurdist humour, but as it is I don’t think thats fair, an easy out - the humour relies on her reaction. I appreciate you engaging as I thought it was an interesting conversation, but most have really taken it to heart it and attacked me for finding a comic distasteful. Counter opinions are very unwelcome here like most comms on Lemmy. My last reply about it but I did want to thank you if but to disagree politely. 👌


  • Many of the funniest comedians are deeply in touch with their empathy - George Carlin, Robin Williams, Bo Burham, Bill Burr has had a famous turn from grievance comic to empathetic philosopher comic and it’s improved his popularity and humour. Meanwhile many of the crappiest ones - Joe Rogan, Andrew Dice Clay, Ellen Degeneres - lack empathy in their lives and performances. Having empathy doesn’t mean you can’t be fun or funny, often the opposite.






  • Why does nobody read articles before weighing in?

    They discuss this and discount it in the opening paragraphs.

    One might be tempted to explain the disparity as a natural consequence of women living longer. But those studying the disease say that wouldn’t account for such a large difference, and they’re not precisely sure what would.

    While many factors may be at play, researchers are zeroing in on two where the biological differences between women and men are clear: chromosomes and menopause