The disgraceful Supreme Court justice should be held accountable for his actions but probably won’t.

  • andyburke@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because one of the parties is better for lifting people up. Like, immeasurably better.

    I won’t even say which one I think it is. You can decide for yourself.

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      show me these people who have been lifted up?

      statistics point towards largely more poor people, worse health, more debt, less home ownership. who was lifted up and when?

        • Strangle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just look at the amount of people living in poverty in the 40’s and early 50’s, then the democrats started the “war on poverty” and started these programs and 70 years later, the number of people living in poverty has continued to rise

          Just look at the number of people living in poverty those stats aren’t hard to find.

          More people are living in poverty in the US today than they were 70 years ago

          You’d think after 20+ trillion dollars spent, the record on poverty would be much much better

                • Strangle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How is it specious? Do you know what the word even means?

                  Fact: there are more people living in poverty after the war on poverty was started than there were before those policies were put in place.

                  There’s nothing specious about that

                  • HeinousTugboat@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fact: there are double the number of people in the country after than there were before.

                    Fact: social status tends to have generational inertia.

                    Specious: “misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.”

                    It’s absolutely specious, because you’re somehow suggesting those policies failed because the absolute number of individuals went up, disregarding the fact that had those policies not been in place, the number would’ve been double what it is.

                    And I said at best, because it’s far more likely you’re just trolling. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s work through this.

                    If a family in poverty that’s 2 people, has 3 children, that’s now 5 people.

                    If this is the only family that exists, 100% of people are in poverty. If one of those children winds up getting out of poverty, you’ve gone from 2 people in poverty, to 4 people in poverty. However, you’ve gone from 100% poverty to 80% poverty.

                    And you’re saying that’s a failure.

                  • QHC@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Fact: The percentage of people that are in poverty is significantly lower than it was multiple decades ago.

          • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve never heard of social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing opportunities, mental health services, food banks, soup kitchens, etc etc etc

            Like Jesus Christ with that comment. How fucking stupid are conservatives? Go hit your head with a hammer and see if it helps. Seemingly it couldn’t hurt.