407
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

President Biden's reelection campaign is preparing to highlight abortion rights in the lead-up to the anniversary of the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision, CBS News has learned, seeking to tie the upcoming election to a "woman's right to make her own health care decisions — including the very possible reality of a MAGA Republican-led national abortion ban."

The extensive plans include ad buys, campaign rallies and events across the U.S. organized in lockstep with the Democratic National Committee, which will launch opinion pieces in local newspapers focusing on statewide abortion bans.

Ahead of the 51st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on Jan. 22, television and digital ads highlighting the personal impact of abortion restrictions will air in swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, according to a Biden-Harris campaign official.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Implying he could have done anything else?

List the exact actions Biden could have actually taken between Roe being struck down and now that he "waited to do" to make it a reelection issue.

I swear Republicans will start imposing mandatory pregnancy tests at travel checkpoints between state borders and the white left will still find a way to make it the Democrats' fault to justify not doing anything to stop the Republicans from coming back to power.

Fuckin' porcelain-american shit.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago

This. This right fucking here that he waited till close to reelection is at least what he could have done. This article we are commenting on.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

So you're mad that he's making it a campaign issue because he didn't explicitly make it one beforehand, which he did, you just either didn't read the news when he did or forgot he did it.

I'm as annoyed with Dems not being loud enough as the next guy but at a certain point it stops being their fault for being bad at communicating and yours for just refusing to listen.

The article itself in the headline calls out that this is an effort that he's been contributing to and is publicizing a fresh push in.

Porcelain American Shit.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

yes. Im mad he waited till close to election to really make an issue of this instead of leaving it on the back burner. This is a MASSIVE FUCKING THING that he has said next to nothing about. yes I know he has finger waged about it a few times, i haven't forgotten.

also...dude is that porcelain thing like a signature for you?

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

If it's such a "fucking massive thing" then why did no one bother to show up to vote in 2016? 2016 had the lowest voter turn out among young voters. Seems really convenient when something matters. Biden can do no right it seems, even though Roe v Wade was overturned like last year.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because we had shit options in 2016. Remember? You were there right? Everybody constantly talking about how the fuck are we having to pick between Trump and Clinton?

I showed up and I voted for Clinton even though I wasn't happy about it but yeah... Here we are.

Also I'm not understanding your quotation marks around massive fucking thing. Are you trying to act like this isn't actually a big deal? That this isn't a hot button issue among people? That's the only thing I can figure out you're trying to imply with that?

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

I put it in quotation marks because it's only a massive fucking thing when it's convenient. Apparently constantly purity testing our candidates is WAY more important than actually accomplishing things.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

To YOU its only a big deal when its convenient. To me this has been a big issue for a long time.

again...and i don't get why i have to keep saying this to you fucking cultists....I like Biden. But that means you are allowed to dislike some of his decisions. Stop acting like a redhat and lashing out anyone who dares to question a single misstep your god emperor takes.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Woah I don't care for Biden. What I care about is getting a super majority so we can pass meaningful policy and appoint the right people in leadership. For some reason online discourse is either a) purity testing the presidential candidate b) acting as if the president alone has some kind of universal magical powers that can fix all our problems.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

God you love those words purity testing. But I'm glad you, at least now, agree this is a big deal as opposed to the way you tried to downplay it in your original post.

But again...all this bullshit from you and other people came about because I dared to criticize a singe action of Biden's, a man who ive said multiple times, I actually like. As much as one can like most politicians these days anyways. People blabbering about purity testing. People literally calling me a saboteur to the democratic party. People claiming I'm going out of my way to try to get Trump elected.

Holy fuck politics in this country are a joke.

edit-Oh yeah, Can't forget me questioning Biden had someone like you give me a massive speech about how horrible white people are that a mod ended up removing. All because i said "so he waited to make this an election issue". All those things from that one simple comment.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

You're welcome to criticize Biden as much as you want. I don't care, but do it on the right merits and with an understanding of how legislation gets passed. Because singling out the president is such a moronic thing in this context. Of course it's an election issue. But apparently that's not good enough because he could have somehow done more even though we have a republican majority in the Senate. Do you see how that comes off as really disingenuous criticism? It's just rehashing "Biden bad" for the sake of ....what?

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

All I have been saying, over and over and over, is he could have at least been doing exactly what he's doing here, this right here, at the very least. Instead he waited to do this as a reelection issue. This one tiny little criticism.

And that makes he a horrible white man plotting the downfall of the democratic party and telling people to vote for Trump.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Listen, if he's not reelected we ain't getting shit done. It's over. This is the nature of politics. Without power or secure coalitions we ain't getting anything done. It's not like this alone is going to sway voters. This guy has a big mountain to climb to stay in office it seems. This might be an electoral gesture, but in the Grand scheme it's a drop in the bucket. We can keep our eyes on the prize or we can bitch and moan all day about how imperfect Joe is. He's here for only four years, our lives and the lives of our kids have to go through multiple administrations. I'm here for the long game. Is Joe my favorite candidate of all time? God no. But politics is a marathon not a sprint.

[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I never said he should not be reelected and I don't bitch and moan about how imperfect he is all day. I criticized a single action of his on a single thread and now, for over 24 hours, people like you have been harassing me, making things up about me, and insulting me for doing so.

[-] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

He did make it an issue an election ago. "vote for us and we'll do something".

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago

Resize the obviously politically biased Supreme Court.

this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
407 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3397 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS