“The president has been adamant that we need to restore Roe. It is unfathomable that women today wake up in a country with less rights than their ancestors had years ago,” Fulks said.

Biden has been poised to run on what has been described as the strongest abortion rights platform of any general election candidate as he and his allies look to notch a victory in the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

Last month, Biden seized on a case in Texas, where a woman, Kate Cox, was denied an abortion despite the risk to her life posed by her pregnancy.

“No woman should be forced to go to court or flee her home state just to receive the health care she needs,” Biden said of the case. “But that is exactly what happened in Texas thanks to Republican elected officials, and it is simply outrageous. This should never happen in America, period.”

  • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    11 months ago

    “Restoring Roe isn’t the only item on Biden’s to-do list. In a second term, the president would aim to “finish the job,” on a slate of priorities his administration has already begun pushing for, Fulks said, including banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, cutting the cost of insulin and expanding student loan forgiveness.”

    This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      11 months ago

      You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren’t holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.

      • aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        You don’t have to make excuses for the powerful, you know. There are always going to be challenges to overcome to create positive change. We should judge people by how well they overcome those challenges.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Okay, explain exactly how Biden would have been able to ban assault weapons, cut insulin costs and expand student loan forgiveness without congress. And without SCOTUS blocking it. I’d honestly like to know.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                And why should anyone believe his empty worthless promises he has no intention of doing anything about this time?

                We all know that Democrats don’t want to do shit about Roe. We know they’ll find just enough no votes, or find some procedural bullshit excuse, and of course they will never get rid of the filibuster.

                • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I always wonder what proposal you people actually suggest that isn’t Joe Biden walking into the Senate with a gun and pointing it at Manchin.

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    If he knows he can’t pass it and promises it anyway, why should we believe any of his promises? They’re not worth the barely tepid air he expended to make them.

                  • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Then explain to us morons what “prioritizing” abortion rights actually means. Because right now you’re saying there’s nothing he can do.

                  • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    President doesn’t need to point a gun at someone, just a TV camera and the willingness to actually fight for something.

          • aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m going to say a thing that would be considered entirely reasonable if we were talking about any other profession, but since we are talking about the powerful, will be disregarded:

            That is not my job. That is the president’s job. I should not be expected to come up with a strategy to solve their problems. When they tell me they are going to do something, and then fail to do so, they did a bad job.

            I used to think like you do. I used to think I was savvier than all the naive people who wanted things from their politicians, and criticized the politicians when they didn’t deliver, because how could they have? But over time I’ve realized that I was being duped. That I should stop arguing that better things aren’t possible, because when people believe that, it comes true.

            A criticism I’ll head off: I understand I can’t vote for them and forget it. I’m not advocating for reduced civil engagement; it’s our job to protest and agitate.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              Please provide evidence that I think I am “savvier than all the naive people who wanted things from their politicians and criticized politicians when they didn’t deliver.”

              Unless that was a lie. Was it a lie that I think the way you used to think?

              • aberrate_junior_beatnik@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                Sure, in response to this statement that is a criticism that Biden did not deliver:

                This all sounds like shit he should have done in his first term if he wanted Dems to have any faith in him whatsoever.

                You said:

                You seem to think a president can act unilaterally. Or that Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema weren’t holding the senate by the balls until the house got taken by Republicans two years ago.

                I don’t think it’s unfair to say you think it is naive to believe that the “president can act unilaterally”, and the natural converse of naivety is being savvy.

                Anyway, I fail to see the point of arguing with someone who thinks I am a liar, so I will bow out of this conversation. Have a nice day. Believe it or not, I do sincerely wish you well.

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Then explain it to me. What does “prioritizing” mean? What the fuck can Biden do and why should I vote for him “prioritizing” abortion rights?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  No. I do not have to prove that I didn’t say something you claimed I said. It is not my job to prove that you didn’t lie. It is yours. If I said Biden can’t do anything, quote me. If I didn’t say it, be an adult and admit you lied.

                  • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Buddy, four comments in and you haven’t given a single example. Biden can’t do anything about abortion rights and you fucking know it. (And I know he wouldn’t do anything about it even if he could because he’s a fucking piece of shit.) Take the L and let the grown ups talk.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          If the house and senate don’t go blue? Or if they do? Because I assure you I much prefer him vetoing republicans to trump encouraging them

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Welp, unfortunately Biden has decided he’d rather block strikes, fuck the BBB and support genocide over getting my vote so…

      • Tremble@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Biden is pathetically weak.

        He let two of the most corrupt senators in his caucus bully him into losing ALL of his agenda, while he still called them his good friends.

        On the one hand you are saying Biden was powerless, but somehow in the future he won’t be?

        You’re even more pathetic than Biden

    • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      Abortion, guns, medical costs, student loans.

      It’s more a list of generally winning issues for Democrats to be trotted out ever 2-4 years. With the added ‘benefit’ of Republicans fucking up abortion rights so bad that now it’s a flagship issue for Dems more than it has been since Roe.

      • joenforcer@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly, Republicans fucked this up for themselves. Abortion was the classic wedge issue. Single-issue voters that wanted abortion banned would come out every 2-4 years to vote for the candidate who claimed to be pro-life, who would then make a token effort then shrug when nothing changed, rinse-repeat. Now, those voters have no reason to come out and people that are actually affected negatively have EVERY reason to come out.

        • Poiar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          In my country it’s called anti-abortion. Is it ever called this in the US? I think it frames it better, as everybody here is pro-living-things

          • Matt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s exactly why they like to call it a pro life stance, even though nobody’s life is preserved. Not mothers in need of emergency medical care. Not fetuses with debilitating medical deficiencies. It’s a fake stance that projects compassion without actually having any.