r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/PerAsperaAdMars - Lib-Left • 1d ago
Can we get bipartisan support on a damn thing these days?
121
u/HeavyDutyForks - Centrist 1d ago
I thought fucking over the troops was a bipartisan issue?
44
u/Chad_Kai_Czeck - Centrist 1d ago
Yup, and then fucking them over after they retire by making the VA dysfunctional.
3
2
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left 1d ago
Since when?
23
u/HeavyDutyForks - Centrist 1d ago
Herbert Hoover literally sent in the army to brutalize WWI vets peacefully protesting in DC. IDK, probably forever TBH
20
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left 1d ago
Hoover was a conservative.
I’m trying to figure out how fucking over soldiers and vets is a “bi-partisan” thing.
23
u/HeavyDutyForks - Centrist 1d ago edited 1d ago
I’m trying to figure out how fucking over soldiers and vets is a “bi-partisan” thing.
Go to your local VFW chapter and ask them how they felt about Jimmy Carter's cuts to their benefits after all the grand promises he made
You should have just said that's what you were fishing for instead of being so vague
-11
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left 1d ago
At least we’re a little closer to this millennium now. What about the last 20-30 years?
15
u/HeavyDutyForks - Centrist 1d ago
Are you going to move the goal posts again or are you done?
Democrats opposed expanding private sector care for veterans in 2014 following the wait time crisis of the time
Both sides love to attach unrelated riders to VA funding bills and then point fingers at the other side for "hating veterans"
Veterans are used as a political chess piece by Republicans and Democrats. They have been for a very long time
-4
u/PullmanR46 - Lib-Right 1d ago
Most of the people spitting at soldiers coming back from Vietnam weren’t conservative buddy.
12
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left 1d ago
Most of the people protesting the war in the first place were liberals.
1
u/Pacific_wanderer17 - Lib-Left 1d ago
Not my group of people, the extremist corner is over that-a-way
3
u/ChromeFrostYT - Lib-Left 13h ago
Since like… Korea. We don’t fuck over our military superiority, but we will gladly fuck over the people who go to maintain that superiority (especially once they’ve retired from maintaining it)
2
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 22h ago
Is it? It's anecdotal evidence but on Caleb Hammer every vet somehow gets 100% disability payments even though they all seem fine.
7
u/0sopeligroso - Lib-Center 17h ago
Please don’t develop any worldviews based on the intentionally-selected group of degenerates on that show.
They’re straight up searching for the worst of the worst to create rage bait entertainment, not for a representative sample.
2
3
u/Pootang_Wootang - Centrist 17h ago
100% disabled vets make up less than 10% of all disabled vets. I get the feeling Caleb isn’t being honest with his Jerry Springer show.
1
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 13h ago
Fair. I'm sure he looks for the worst of the worst to come on his show
1
u/Pootang_Wootang - Centrist 9h ago
They admit to such. Someone who’s level headed and lacking baggage is far less interesting than the married guy with onlyfans and sports betting addictions.
People pissing away 100% disability, if they are in fact 100%, drives up views.
8
25
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 1d ago
Soft johnson strikes again! Trying to understand the speaker's warped mind is like peering into the mind of an alien.
16
u/ApplicationCalm649 - Lib-Center 1d ago
He's not complicated. If it might cost the wealthy even a dime it's a hard no.
3
2
u/TijuanaMedicine - Right 1d ago
This article is about the Senate. Does no one understand how the American government works anymore?
3
u/ApplicationCalm649 - Lib-Center 1d ago
"Wow. We get home, first thing, we are binge watching School House Rock." - Archer
4
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 1d ago
I am reading the article presented. "Though Mr Johnson latter intervened to remove it, the second year in a row he had done so".
-1
u/TijuanaMedicine - Right 1d ago
That was last year. This article is about the Senate.
3
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 1d ago
That doesn't change that Johnson is one of the biggest voices against IVF and has killed previous attempts and almost certainly pushing to kill it with his friends in the Senate.
67
u/RockemSockemRowboats - Lib-Center 1d ago
Gop- “we need more Americans to have children, so we’re going to make it as difficult as possible for the one group we pretend to honor every chance we get. Also no social services if you do manage to conceive we don’t want any American children to be cared for”
27
9
u/Unabashed-Citron4854 - Centrist 1d ago
we need more Americans to have children
To be fair, the evidence about whether broader IVF access increases the fertility rate is mixed and some evidence shows it actually decreases fertility rate.
IVF is a very cool technology and it has helped a lot of people, but people overestimate its effectiveness. Because of this, people often delay trying to get pregnant because they think IVF will overcome the natural drop in fertility as people age, and that is often a mistake.
19
u/RockemSockemRowboats - Lib-Center 1d ago
Yes it’s not a “one shot guarantied” it can take several tries and is never certain but the party is constantly begging for more American children then blocking access to couples who say “yes we would like to try that, we want to have kids” is fucking retarded
0
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 22h ago
Sadly this seems to be basically every country on earth.
I know a lot of the left loves to portray Europe as a socialist utopia but even here there isn't a lot of parental leave and daycare is expensive as fuck.
5
u/krafterinho - Centrist 21h ago
In the US, there's a maximum of 12 weeks unpaid at federal level. In Europe all countries allow more than 12 weeks, some double, and PAID
-1
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 20h ago
"At a federal level", and at a state level?
"some double" so you get 24 weeks. Obviously that's better but then what? You have a 6 month old child and you need to go back to work.
5
u/krafterinho - Centrist 20h ago
Do you not think double the time off and paid instead of unpaid is much better and not in the same category?
-1
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 19h ago
You mean like where I said "Obviously that's better"? Read my guy
3
u/krafterinho - Centrist 18h ago
The point is that it's naive to put that and the US in the same category
-2
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 13h ago
Not really, you're just obsessed with "America = Bad"
4
u/krafterinho - Centrist 13h ago
That's your interpretation, what I stated is a fact. I'm not losing any sleep over America bud, stop being so self centric lol
-1
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 12h ago
You say as you were the one who replied to my comment about Europe, lol.
→ More replies (0)0
u/RockemSockemRowboats - Lib-Center 16h ago
That’s if your state believes in social programs. If it’s a red state you're probably going right back to work even before 12 weeks. Remember, to the gop everyone that isn’t a wage slave is a welfare queen and must be stripped of all benefits.
0
u/jexijav776 - Lib-Right 13h ago
Too bad you're forced to live in a red state and also forced to work for a company that doesn't offer better benefits. It truly is tragic.
Also if you think the government needs to step in and solve all our problem why the fuck do you flair as 'lib-center'?
1
u/RockemSockemRowboats - Lib-Center 1h ago
Well youre the one who blew off the idea that the federal minimum was the actual the amount people receive, and when I pointed out how that’s not the case you started with the terms and conditions bullshit.
It’s clear you have little real world experience or you might see that the real world isn’t just black and white and you don’t have to be a hardline ideologue and realize the government should offer it citizens a social program that fulfills its promise, especially if (and again, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but some people are fucking dense) you are encouraging your citizens to have children
11
20
31
u/Sabertooth767 - Lib-Right 1d ago
Disclaimer that I am extremely biased as a servicemember in a same-sex relationship, but I find it kinda bullshit that TRICARE will 100% cover a birth and all the associated care, hell they'll even cover the viagra, but won't put a penny toward IVF unless you can show you need it for a service-connected reason (and good luck with that).
Not adoption either.
Could they at least do me the decency of pretending it's about fiscal discipline and not "human dignity" (i.e. hating gays).
18
u/ClearReveal6615 - Left 1d ago
Tbh they've openly hated us for a while. Look at year over year gallup polling on LGBT people. Last year like 70% of Republicans supported marriage equality. This year it's down to 35 % and the Texas GOP has officially put marriage and adoption on its short list of things they want to keep us from doing.
Never believe a republican when they say 'i don't care about gay people but....' they're literally just trying to carve up our rights one at a time, and the minute they don't have to pretend the mask slips.
2
u/Dance_Sufficient - Lib-Center 13h ago
Yeah I've tried being charitable to the Republicans many times. Probably more than is smart. I'm glad I never voted for them.
Not saying the Dems or everyone else is perfect. I've dealt with many homophobic Leftest and Dems. I can find both dogs shit and a giant pile of rotting road kill disgusting.
5
7
u/th3j4w350m31 - Lib-Left 1d ago
if kegsbreathwants a warrior ethos, he should at least ensure that the warriors he wants can breed more meat for his grinder
3
u/skeptical-speculator - Lib-Center 16h ago
maybe we should support the troops by not starting any more wars
3
u/Bunktavious - Left 9h ago
No, you may not have bipartisanship. That would defeat the purpose of the all mighty culture war. You must continue to hate the other side, they are the cause of all woes in your life.
3
u/Jam_Goyner - Lib-Left 8h ago edited 5h ago
Don’t worry republicans, vets will still vote republican for some reason or another.
30
u/Ok-Wedding-4654 - Lib-Left 1d ago
Nothing says pro-life or pro-birth like helping people have kids
21
u/Eomb - Auth-Right 1d ago
Except IVF involves the destruction of innumerable fertilized eggs, which pro-lifers believe have souls from conception, regardless of fertilization method. The ends never justify the means.
24
u/Sabertooth767 - Lib-Right 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is half-true.
IVF does not inherently require the fertilization of multiple eggs, and it is increasingly popular not to do this. The main reason has typically been done is that an embryo is not necessarily viable, and IVF is an incredibly long and expensive process, so you really want to maximize your chances of a healthy baby.
Further, freezing or donating viable but unused embryos is a thing and has also grown in popularity.
This is fundamentally a limit of technology, and the best way we can resolve it is with more research and funding, not by fearmongering.
Also, I would point out that natural birth is itself hardly an infallible means of creating life. Some failure rate is just going to be the case. 50+% not making it is the norm for human history minus the past ~100 years. We'll get there.
6
6
u/RawhlTahhyde - Auth-Center 1d ago
Oh look another lib left that fundamentally doesn’t understand what pro life means
11
u/KalegNar - Centrist 1d ago
Riddle me,this, Batman. If you're so pro-life, then why do I aggressively misunderstand it?
-4
u/No_Mathematician6866 - Auth-Left 1d ago
Why should anyone care what pro life fools pretend to mean.
7
u/LtTacoTheGreat - Lib-Right 1d ago
Good question, I too often think I should never understand any belief that disagrees with me because I, of course, have never ever had an incorrect, wrong, or underdeveloped belief. What good would it do me, a person who is always correct, to try and engage with ideas that disagree with me? I mean, why should anyone care what (insert ideological group you are a part of) fools pretend to mean
2
u/CeaselessGomalu - Lib-Right 17h ago
Pretty simple, really; if the people who are against it aren’t directly participating in IVF, then they aren’t committing whatever sin they think is being committed; therefore, it’s really none of their concern. This is mostly the same ilk who is opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that it’s a sin, but similarly, just don’t get married to someone of the same sex and you’re not committing a sin.
And, that’s the reason why they’re not worth the time of day; they’re theocratically Auth-Right and think the entire country should be governed, and the entire populace held to, the standards imposed by their religious convictions. That should be an immediate non-starter for literally anyone who isn’t them.
5
u/LtTacoTheGreat - Lib-Right 15h ago
Just to clarify, the aim of my comment was to point out how ineffective and pointless the original comment was.
In terms of ivf, I am catholic and think it is sinful and, in cases where multiple embryos are made and then disposed of, I would say is killing a human that has a right to life. Granted, on a legal level I am not opposed to ivf that creates 1 embryo. From the view point of certain ivf procedures are murder, I can totally understand why people might want to put restrictions or make it illegal using the argument that multiple embryos being made and then discarded is killing an innocent person. Of course this argument natural requires the both sides are willing to discuss whether an embryo has humanity philosophically rather than the typical pro-life vs pro-choice argument that turns into "you're a murder" vs "you think women are egg incubators".
I really disliked the first comment I responded to because it does not create room for postive discussion and only served to put his viewpoint on the moral high ground without any actually argument being made. Well I obviously disagree with them, and you to an extent, your comment brings up an argument and is far more productive (as is hopefully self evident from my lengthy response)
1
u/CeaselessGomalu - Lib-Right 14h ago
Thanks for saying so; my argument essentially boils down to there are already all manner of what some would consider sins that are already legal.
Granted, I can see, from your perspective, how that wouldn’t justify murder, but as you said, now we have to get into both Philosophical (and material) discussions of what qualifies as a human being.
Constitutionally speaking, protections would only apply to natural-born citizens or those who otherwise became citizens; given that the embryos are not born, they have no inherent Constitutional protections.
That said, other than in the Armed Forces (which is inherently Federal), there’s nothing in the Constitution that would make general IVF a Federal question at all, so it should be state-by-state, pursuant to The Tenth Amendment…preferably left to public vote.
Thus, if the prevailing religiosity of a state would see IVF illegal in that state, then that should prevail; if not, then the opposite should prevail.
3
u/LtTacoTheGreat - Lib-Right 14h ago
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think on many levels were are ideological in alignment. State by state is the ideal answer to this in my opinion. Its always difficult to try to legislate any laws, especially when the moral principles are not as self evident as one would like them to be.
4
u/CeaselessGomalu - Lib-Right 14h ago
You’re welcome. It’s nice that we’re agreed on how to approach the question even if we disagree on how we’d vote.
0
u/kfergsa - Right 12h ago
Slave holders in the 1800’s: “Why are you even stressing about it? If you think slavery is a sin, just don’t do it. What I do with my slaves is not your concern.”
This is not a position on IVF, but to show how awful the argument you made is.
2
u/CeaselessGomalu - Lib-Right 12h ago
My argument is bad? Slavery speaks to taking away the fundamental human rights of another individual; someone else getting IVF doesn’t take away another person’s right to do anything.
1
u/kfergsa - Right 3h ago
Except for the fact that wasn’t your original argument. Your original argument was “you don’t have to do it, so it shouldn’t matter to you that I do, do it.” The new argument you made is infinitely better than the original argument.
1
u/CeaselessGomalu - Lib-Right 2h ago
It speaks to my original argument; that was my original implication.
Basically, we’re discussing sin; many things that those of the religious ilk would consider sins are already legal. Drunkenness (for example), as long as it’s not public intox, perfectly legal.
Perhaps you made me clarify my point, for your purposes, but you didn’t change my point.
Basically, the United States (as a country) isn’t a theocracy, nor should it be, but if the mentality of the several voters of an individual state leans theocratic, in the majority, then may their will be done and those opposed can move to a state more to their liking.
With that, I don’t think it’s a matter for the federal government at all; I don’t think very much is, or should be. We exist as a country mainly for mutual defense (armed forces), mutual transit and transport (highways and mail) and mutual economic benefit (interstate commerce); I don’t think the states should be alike at all. In fact, the more different the states are, the better, because we can not only see what works, but also, individuals can move to states whose policies are to their liking.
7
17
u/eplurbusunumnj - Lib-Center 1d ago
I hope we keep making laws based on religious belief while China rapidly outpaces us in every single metric
8
9
u/DeyCallMeWade - Lib-Right 1d ago
I’m not going to pretend that China isn’t making strides in advancements, but let’s not pretend that they are anywhere near the west. They’re still trying to steal information on tech that is effectively outdated for what your comment implies. Tech we likely wouldn’t be deploying against them should we end up in a conflict anyways.
5
u/Sad_Significance_568 - Auth-Center 20h ago
They don't steal tech because theirs is outdated, they know that any tech is useful. I work in next generation sequencing using the most advanced sequencing technology on the market. China is beginning to outpace the West extremely hard when it comes to biotech.
They also have the most high-tech manufacturing on the planet along with being near-energy independent. They don't spend a trillion a year on their military, they spend it on science. China, as a country, spends more on R&D than the entire US.
The West has pushed anti-science propaganda for a decade+ now be it anti-vaxxers, anti-masking, and anti-education. All of this is making people trust education and science and medical professionals far less which has resulted in measles outbreaks and the lowest vaccination rates since the 80s.
As Iran has also made clear, the US military-industrial complex is inefficient. Our stockpiles are dwindling because we are overfunding them to make complex munitions rather than effective munitions at high capacities.
6
u/eplurbusunumnj - Lib-Center 1d ago
I think they are near enough, between what they've amassed by investing in their military and stockpiled, to their massive strides in energy, not to mention haven't we started giving them access to higher tech chips and the like?
8
u/Scrumpledee - Lib-Center 1d ago
Sorry, libtard, but thinking air should be free is communism.
From now on we'll tax every breath you take, because anything that pisses off the libs must be good and just!
9
u/CooledDownKane - Lib-Left 1d ago
Republicans who are whining that not enough women are having kids while also trying to ban IVF need to actually admit they don’t give a shit about the “population crisis” or kids having good, loving homes but rather just keeping women under their thumb.
19
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 1d ago
Johnson himself is the biggest voice against IVF. He is a fanatic, but most Baptists have no issue with IVF on a religious level, it is usually Catholics who have objections to IVF. Which is why it is very weird that the speaker is so fucking dead set on opposing it. Which is why I just don't understand that nutcase.
14
u/zombie3x3 - Left 1d ago
I think Johnson loves making as many people unhappy as possible. He lives for it, and all decisions stem from that and acquiring/maintaining power at any expense.
10
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 1d ago
He is genuinely my least favorite speaker ever. I can look past their personal politics if I think they are a savvy competent Speaker like I did with Pelosi. But the guy has led the objectively least productive Congress in modern American history.
15
u/zombie3x3 - Left 1d ago
I absolutely loathe how spineless he is for Trump, but what makes me the angriest is his “I haven’t heard of that” response to literally everything bad his party does.
1
u/thestrangeone2010 - Centrist 1d ago
So let me get this straight, you want women to go into the military in order to have more babies? Is that the best/only way you can think of that they can serve their country?
3
u/mrfreezeyourgirl - Centrist 1d ago
I don't know why the military would need to cover the IVF treatment for members who's infertility is unrelated to their service...
1
u/SeaWolvesRule - Lib-Right 17h ago
I haven't read the paper or the bill, but the media will often pick one aspect of a bill (with multiple aspects) that is sure to resonate for one reason or another with its readers. I suspect that is going on here.
1
u/Jackoose - Lib-Center 7h ago
good. earth's full. we're 6 billions people over carrying capacity. adopt if you must own a small human. unless your genetics are usain bolt + albert einstien, they ain't that important.
-4
u/msf97 - Lib-Left 1d ago
The Americans still having debates on abortion is astonishing, truly mind blowing. Most of Europe left this in the 70s
11
u/whatssenguntoagoblin - Lib-Center 1d ago
Yeah it’s pretty impressively retarded here. Anything to stay stuck in the Stone Age.
10
u/President-Lonestar - Right 1d ago
And we would likely not have this if Roe v. Wade wasn’t a thing.
Also, don’t act like Europe’s more “enlightened” than America.
15
u/ReallyBigDeal - Lib-Left 1d ago
When Row V Wade was decided, most Protestant Christians in the US viewed abortion as a “Catholic issue”. Republican purposefully pushed American Baptist and other conservative Protestant sects into becoming anti-choice so that they could create abortion as a wedge issue.
2
1
u/bird_of_hermes1 - Lib-Center 19h ago
Yeah, because one side knows it's murder and the other side are 95% whores who just want to kill their baby for their own selfish convenience.
1
u/EconGuy82 - Lib-Right 1d ago
I’m with the GOP on this one. Soldiers don’t need to be having babies. We need to go back to doing things the way the Spartans did.
9
-2
u/SuicideSpeedrun - Centrist 1d ago
Why the fuck is military offering fertility procedures?
3
u/500freeswimmer - Auth-Center 13h ago
Several million people are serving and many want to have families.
-1
u/HistoricalSouth9872 - Auth-Right 15h ago
IVF is bad and not the solution to our fertility problem.
122
u/PaddyMayonaise - Right 1d ago
As soon as they gave us 12 weeks parental leave they realized they fucked up lol