Democrat who made reproductive rights a campaign focus will win Alabama special election, CNN projects | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
Marilyn Lands, a Democrat who made reproductive rights a central part of her campaign, will win a special election Tuesday for an Alabama state House seat, CNN projects.
  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    871·
    9 months ago

    This is one of the only reasons I’m still a little hopeful about 2024. Even if Trump wins, he very well could not control the legislature. And because of abortion.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      84·
      9 months ago

      trump would veto everything passed by a democrat-controlled congress that didn’t pass with near-unanimous support from republicants, too; abuse tf out of ‘executive orders’ (even more than the first go around); stack scotus even more; and further empower other nutjobs to follow in his diaper droppings.

      trump moving back to 1600 penn ave nw would be a disaster from which this nation would not recover.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        332·
        9 months ago

        Sure, but he would also not be able to pass laws that he needed to pass in order to cement his dictatorship plans. Which is why I have a slight amount of optimism.

        • thefartographer@lemm.ee
          32·
          9 months ago

          The world’s-most-evil-sun-dried-tangelo led an insurrection and is successfully running for president again with people carrying out conversations such as “why Trump’s serious attempt at dictatorship might not be so bad.” If he wins, I’d expect any dissenting Dems to be forced out either by pressures within or legitimate coordinated attacks from MAGA supporters.

          Hell, there’s a high probability powerful political adversaries will be straight up killed and they’d call it Operation Hummingbird to honor the true architect of the current Conservative playbook.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            181·
            9 months ago

            I don’t disagree, but I am going to cling to any shred of hope I can cling to. I can’t just accept that all is lost until all is actually lost.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            3·
            9 months ago

            One of the things that convinced a few Never Trumpers to quit was the risk of violence. They’ll be happy to expand the program.

        • teejay@lemmy.worldEnglish
          30·
          9 months ago

          Why would he even bother with all of the red tape and process to pass laws? He would just issue imperial edicts executive orders to do whatever he wanted. Laws have never meant shit to him. And why would they? He breaks them with impunity and never faces any real consequences. If he has an unfriendly congress, he’ll ignore them.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            56·
            9 months ago

            Well there’s the fact that the Supreme Court regularly overturned his Executive Orders the first time and also the fact that they are limited in scope and can be reversed as easily as they are issued.

            • 4grams@awful.systemsEnglish
              16·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, the Supreme Court has sure shown how it’s going to be an impediment to him lately…

                • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  52·
                  9 months ago

                  Some days I just wish I could view the world through the addled brains of dolts like you who are just incapable of the most basic critical thinking… It must be a terrifying reality for you, just feeling your way blindly through the dark. It’s honestly sad as fuck.

        • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
          212·
          9 months ago

          Dictatorship plans?

          Will the democrats stop pursuing gun control in the face of this imminent threat of conservatives attempting to take control of the state to install an authoritarian government?

          SocialistRA.org

          • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            71·
            9 months ago

            Yeah if only the Bundys had guns, they totally would have succeeded in overthrowing the federal government 🙄. Oh wait, they did. It’s almost as if it means nothing against the most powerful military the world will ever see.

            And as if Democrats are pursuing any kind of legislation that actually does anything to curb gun violence. Just another idiot falling for the propaganda that Democrats want to take away your precious anal dildos guns.

            Who cares about facts and objective reality when something just feels right?

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        36·
        9 months ago

        Worst case in the scenario as presented is you just don’t do anything for four years.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          4·
          9 months ago

          Worst case scenario is he comes to power with more dedicated goons as his cabinet and they just do what they want while the already captured courts find new ways to delay and avoid cases so that he never faces any functional check on them. The System is not self-actuating and is already near the breaking point.

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          53·
          9 months ago

          And what do you think happens after 4 years? Trump, “I will only be a dictator for one day, trust me,” will just willingly and peacefully hand over power?

          Are you a fucking moron?

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            22·
            9 months ago

            My comment totally deserved a personal insult for some reason. You’ve attacked me and managed to avoid contributing anything to the conversation.

    • kromem@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      9 months ago

      He’s not aiming to depend on the legislature.

      Going to replace career non-partisan positions across most departments.

      Once you own the paper pushers, doing things by the book becomes much less relevant.

      In theory there were rules in Germany that would have prevented Hitler up until the point he declared those rules no longer applied and his armed militia agreed with him.

    • just_change_it@lemmy.world
      72·
      9 months ago

      It’s a truly bizarre single issue to focus on considering how high impact it is to the masses and how it presumably isn’t enabling them to make more money or solidify control.

      If they just brought in a couple of populist policies that made the masses happy they probably would have majority control indefinitely on a platform of hate against the minority.

  • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
    652·
    9 months ago

    I hope everyone uses the following buzz-words when discussing this with conservatives, moderates, centrists, etc.:

    • “I mean I’m for individual freedom as much as the next guy, so that’s why I don’t think it’s right to have government intrude on an individual’s rights to their own body.”

    • “I thought Republicans wanted small government? Why are they forcing government in the doctor’s office with me and my doctor?”

    • “I thought Republicans were all about ‘my house my rules,’ — why are they so concerned about an unconscious parasite that is getting free rent from my body? That fetus is a squatter I can evict whenever I want!”

    Identify the double-standard in conservative values.

    • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      37·
      9 months ago

      Legit people need to start doing this. I’ve been saying it for years.

      ‘I’m a true American patriot, I’m not gonna let the government tell me or my fiancee what I can and can’t do with my body. Stop being a commy’ said to an anti abortion republican with an American flag. I also call them snowflakes.

      • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
        282·
        9 months ago

        It works with all the anti-LGBTQ stuff, too:

        “I’m a rugged individualist, which is why I think people should be able to identify and call themselves whatever they want!”

        “As a freedom lover, I see no difference between respecting someone preferring to be called Josh over Joshua, and someone preferring different pronouns. Doesn’t 'ffect me none… After all, it’s just about showing respect to your good neighbor.”

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          10·
          9 months ago

          Good neighbor reminded me, it also works for religion if you’re talking to those types.

          ‘the lord said love thy neighbor and something about throwing stones, fuck you for being a bigot’.

        • Pan_Ziemniak
          7·
          9 months ago

          The trick ive caught on to is to be nonconfrontational, nonthreatening, and try and get in good with them first. The conservatives i talk to these days are other exploited poors from my work. They like me, and i def play into being eccentric/nonconforming which resounds well with these individualism loving individuals. So then i just frame any of these sorts of issues you highlighted from that angle.

          Its… not something theyre ever prepared for.

          Another tip is to present as some sort of radical centrist, regardless of how much of a far left heathen u may in actuality be.

          • bitchkat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            9 months ago

            I had very good luck actually convincing christians that supporting LBGT rights was a christian activity. But that was back in the early 2000’s and they were a bit more reasonable back then and actually willing to think. Basically, I would get them to pull the God doesn’t make mistakes card and that people are being tested. This is when I’d tell them that is likely true but they are the one being tested not the LGBT person.

            • Pan_Ziemniak
              21·
              9 months ago

              Thats what im talking about! I dont like this whole, if ur a conservative u must just be predisposed to be an asshole thing. Theyre up against 50+ years of very concerted propaganda. The fact that u could make headway in the 2000s, or me making any gains now shows just how much effort it takes to keep them with their heads in the sand.

              I harp on the point about keeping these dialogues open so long as theyre not framed the way conservatives imagine, bc that world view can be shaken. And while u prolly will lose many battles, u can shift the cultural conversation this way every time u have it. U can reframe the focus on establishing a culture based on kindness and mutual aid. They might not be convinced, but if their grounds are shaken, u will loosen things up for the next generation they try to groom on the whole. For one, they wont be able to claim so easily that all these leftists they hear about are out to get them.

      • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
        10·
        9 months ago

        Ooh I love the “don’t be a commie” addition. We all know how desperately those snowflake conservatives want to be part of the in-group. That shit will make their heads hurt.

        • Pan_Ziemniak
          5·
          9 months ago

          Maybe the ones on the internet. The ones in my workplace backtrack on making fun of queer folk when u tell them ur friends with trans ppl and call it nonconformity.

        • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
          61·
          9 months ago

          It’s not really about swaying them, but swaying everyone else listening in.

          This is how right-wing propaganda has been so effective. Fox News & affiliates literally promote brainwashing to have the crazy uncles memorize soundbite talking-points to project at Thanksgiving Dinners and so forth across America.

        • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          9 months ago

          Yea I don’t debate them online and even in person I don’t really debate them more so just respond once calling them out using their terms and then I just move on while calling them snowflakes.

      • shastaxc@lemm.ee
        93·
        9 months ago

        Unfortunately, that’s not very helpful for convincing people to change their minds. All of these read as “patting myself on the back because now I’m enlightened to the truth.” And that’s fine, and good, but unhelpful as a debate tool.

      • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        8·
        9 months ago

        Debate doesn’t change people’s minds, that’s not what it’s for.

        Or rather, it does, but that takes months to years.

        If you’re dreaming of delivering a sick, 360 no-scope bullet point to a conservative that gets them to finally see the other side, you’re playing the wrong game.

        Using their own language against them confuses them. Confused people think more. That’s the whole point of this.

        If you’re debating Tucker Carlson, there’s pretty much nothing you can do but beat him down rhetorically; he’s paid not to understand you.

        If you’re debating your neighbor, getting him to think about abortion bans as government overreach is actually a successful play.

        • Pan_Ziemniak
          1·
          9 months ago

          Debate is not for convincing ur opponent, in these cases. The successes ive had w conservatives came from doing the opposite: convincing them that the view im trying to convert them towards is one theyve already held.

          Debating them is for the spectators. If ur debating a conservative and no one is around for it, ur just playing into their game and u will get riled up and lose.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            1·
            9 months ago

            I would say that if you’re in a 1-on-1 with someone, it’s just that your goals are different.

            You can convince people of things, especially little things, but the higher stakes subjects are difficult because there are strongly felt emotions that go with them.

            When you’re debating conservatives into viewing trans people as “just fine, actually,” you’re not really debating whether puberty blockers are safe. You’re debating their own feelings of disgust. Or, their insecurity over their own place in society.

            So, with that in mind, you’ll get less purchase from them with statistics, and you might get a lot more by treating them like they’re crazy for thinking any of this is a big deal. Like, they’ve got their whole “you should be racist too” pitch, and none of it is working on you. This can make them feel, for lack of a better term, weak, and that’s useful to you.

            And even then, you have to realize that this is a long process. Emotions are not rational, and they will come up again and again and again, and worse, this person is probably member to communities whose sole purpose is to stoke the fires of these feelings—it’s difficult.

            But anyway, that’s a long-winded way of agreeing with you, I think. If you can connect something you believe to something they do (the fear of a 1984 government that’ll tell them they can’t use some fertilizer, maybe), you’ll probably have at least a slightly easier time getting them to listen.

            • Pan_Ziemniak
              2·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, i think that is a long winded way of largely agreeing with me xD i especially like, “this is a long process. Emotions are not rational”

              Its easier if u can dance this tango with em over long stretches of time. Ive really gotten conservatives to agree with some shockingly far left sentiments, like ending insurance companies, trans rights, instituting a max wage, or the like, but it takes trust that has to be built up over time. Thats what sucks. And if u leave them be without forcing the issue when u can and when theyre open to hearing it, they will inevitably find someone else to listen to, and that will more than likely be someone else rightwing.

          • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
            3·
            9 months ago

            So you’re saying to kill both my parents, all my uncles and aunts, my neighbors, my coworkers, my sister’s entire extended family, and practically all my cousins? Instead of, maybe, trying to convince them to change their ways?

      • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        Yeah I’ll never change the dyed-in-the-wool; I just hope to bring some insight to the bystanders.

    • Dark Arc@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      Don’t forget “I thought Republicans were the party of states rights? Why are they trying to ban abortion nationally after some states held elections to protect abortion in their state constitution?”

      • lennybird@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        9 months ago

        Oh that’s a good one, I’ll take note.

        At the end of the day the revolving door of inconsistent conservative values just exposes their real values: “what I want and what I believe and fuck everyone else”

        The great thing about highlighting this stuff is it resonates heavily with swing-voters and fence sitters. It’s what helped me move from right to left.

  • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
    31·
    9 months ago

    You would think that conservatives would realize that this is a boulder that they can’t keep trying to roll uphill forever, but I suppose they’re not exactly known for their forward thinking.

  • Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world
    301·
    9 months ago

    Rant

    I want to say something as I’m frustrated with America and stupid text messages.

    Please vote and try to avoid voting for GOP, it seems gop only want control and money for the rich. Whereas democrats are at least trying to help the average American.

    This is my opinion thanks for letting me stand on my soap box.

    End rant.

  • Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world
    56·
    9 months ago

    Does this person support electoral reform?

    Switching away from first past the post voting makes third parties viable and eliminates the spoiler effect. Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why first past the post voting makes third parties not viable.

    Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform actually.

    So what’s the hold up with the rest of the states? Start a campaign in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.