Most company leaders also believe pay and promotions could become linked to workplace attendance
Gee, I wonder who makes the decisions about linking those things, and why they might do that? It wouldn’t be to force the issue, now would it?
No shit you “believe” they’ll become linked because as the “company leader” you’re the one writing the fucking policy linking them. So much talking out their ass like they’re not the ones making this decision.
Jesus Christ these chucklefucks really want people to break out the guillotines, don’t they? They’re practically begging for it.
After seeing the world work perfectly fine without people having to suffer for their jobs... it's hard to unsee the purposeful pain and suffering they inflict on us
CEOs probably felt useless during COVID and realized the company doesn’t need them, so they want to exercise their power to necessitate their position.
Sort of like how some celebrities couldn’t cope with COVID because everybody was doing their own thing and paparazzi couldn’t report on them as much.
Man, being a celebrity in Hollywood took a HUGE hit in Covid... they are borderline irrelevant at best and thought of as unintelligent, entitled clowns at worst.
CEOs probably felt useless during COVID and realized the company doesn’t need them
Probably more that they’ve always been keenly aware how they’re just vampires sitting on the labor of everyone below them, and COVID scared the bejeesus out of them, because suddenly other people could see that, too. It did more to show lowly workers this was always the case than it spurred any self-reflection in CEOs.
COVID showed the Emperor had no clothes, and this is simply the Emperor scrambling to find anything to cover up with.
like Target, corporate simple doesn't want to deal with the possible lost business of nutbags boycotting starbucks over a few pride flags in the store.
or maybe the drama of said nutbags coming into store and assaulting employees over it.
Target and Starbucks are (understandably, IMO) bowing to violent threats against their employees and customers. There's not enough nuts out there to make a boycott actually impact their profit margin, and if there was it would be obvious to the other side that would probably more than offset any effort. Rainbow Capitalism wouldn't exist if that wasn't the case.
But there are enough nuts out there to make good on their threats of violence. We've already seen those threats carried out many times, so it's not just some hypothetical possibility.
I think that Walmart employee that was murdered by and anti-mask but really opened people's eyes to how real domestic terrorism is in the US to these companies. Whether they're doing this because they want to protect their employees or want to stop backlash against them is still up for debate, but either way it's clear that terrorism works.
like Target, corporate simple doesn't want to deal with the possible lost business of nutbags boycotting starbucks over a few pride flags in the store.
I 100% consider myself an ally of the lgbtq+ community.
Its just not worth putting a target on your employees back these days. Lunatics coming in, harassing and assaulting minimum age workers because of colors on the wall.
Employees think they want it.. but they aren't prepared for the backlash that would ensue (nor should they, they're baristas for fuck sake).
What I'm worried about is the engagement they're getting, I wouldn't be surprised if they went from "let's put pride stuff to produce engagement off conservatives" to "let's put pride stuff to produce engagement off conservatives and THEN take it away to produce engagement off progressives"
Acquiescing makes the queer community more vulnerable and many of these employees are themselves queer.
Standing up to hate is the correct thing. Rubbing your position in bigot's faces is the correct thing. Pulling a Gary Bettman and pretending anti-queer hate is something which can be ignored away is taking the side of and emboldening oppression.
How can you ask our baristas and target employees to do the right thing when our police, politicians, etc. can not?
Security guards were shot in the head at convenient stores for asking customers to mask up during the pandemic. I don't expect the 16 year old kid making my coffee to stand up to a right wing lunatic. Our children and minimum wage workers should not be on the front lines of human rights issues in my opinion.
So your suggestion is to embolden the fascists who would threaten 16 year olds with guns? Your solution to the location of the front line is to surrender to those who would move that line to the homes and rooms of some of these same cashiers and baristas? You think giving in to threats will make those threats go away?
The moral responsibility of all people is to oppose hate.
The responsibility for the safety of workers from attack rests with their employers.
Clearly the solution is to make the stores even gayer and pay for as much security as it takes to keep the workers safe from those who take offense.
Giving in will make everyone less safe, appeasement never works.
I’ll blame each and every eligible person who didn’t show up to vote for him, regardless of what their excuse is. This isn’t the time to be playing around.
Meh, I could care less whether y’all believe it or not. I used to troll the .win forms back then because Trump supporters were utter cancer, and now somehow y'all have become even worse.
Btw, wanna quote Sartre for me? Thanks Norby, I missed you.
When is the time to be ‘playing around?’ Your phrase gets repeated every single election meaning you’re doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo.
This is the behavior of sycophants and rivals that of the MAGA base. “Shut up, don’t criticize, and mindlessly vote for my guy, or it’s the end of the world as we know it!”
The primary. A general election in which a fascist like Donald Trump isn’t the only other viable option.
Like it or not, we have a two party system. Either Biden’s going to be the next president, or Trump is. When it comes to the general election, if you do anything besides voting for Biden, you’re complicit in electing Trump.
Which candidate, specifically, A) Wants to be president and is willing to run, B) Is better than Biden on the issues you mentioned, and C) Has a reasonable chance of beating Trump in the general election?
The people in these threads never have an alternative. They are drunk on righteous fury and just want their clarity of purpose to result in clarity of action. To do this, they flip the classic logical fallacy on its head and have to argue, “the means justify the ends.” Voting against Biden to them is an unassailable means, wherever the ends lead.
Versus someone who would be even worse for Palestinians and Americans? No, I won’t blame Biden if people let Trump in over the issue of Palestine. Because it means they were fast asleep between 2016 and 2020.
Thats what fucking matters. Do you want to fucking beat Trump or not? Whats your priority here? Running Biden or beating Trump? You have to pick one.
There is a genocide going on now not later. Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not. This isn’t a hypothetical. If Israel is allowed to continue, by April, there won’t be a Palestinian people in Gaza to consider. They’ll have been starved/ bombed to death, by Israel with the explicit support of Joe Biden.
Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not.
So, are you claiming that if the United States stops sending some military aid to Israel, Netanyahu will be unable to continue military operations in Gaza? Because if so, you are sorely mistaken. Israel's military is perfectly self-sufficient, and if you think they particularly care about some UN resolutions, you need to talk to some Israelis.
American support in this is not a significant factor in the outcome. Joe Biden could not unilaterally stop Israeli operations in Gaza unless he declared war on Israel and deployed troops, and I can assure you that isn't going to be happening. Not to mention, China, Russia, India, Europe, and all of South America also exist. Americans do not unilaterally decide everything that happens or doesn't happen in the world. We're not that important.
Do you realize that you’re arguing against yourself here? Claiming that “it wouldn’t make a difference whether the US supported Israel or not,” makes it look so much fucking worse that Biden is refusing to drop support for this genocide. This is incredibly tone deaf.
Because the genocide of queer people in the U.S. apparently is far less important and if Trump gets into office, has already planned and made clear that it will be far worse.
But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.
Just seriously ask yourself if you want Trump to be president again. If the answer to this is “No”, the look at the data and see how Joe Biden is doing. He’s doing fucking horribly. He’s losing this election and we haven’t even had the convention yet. His support is very low and is dropping. If you insist on proceeding with Biden as candidate, you are insisting on a losing proposition.
If you are concerned about queer rights, you better figure out a better option than Biden, because by the numbers, he’s not going to win in November.
Pointing out that you are ignoring a genocide in the U.S. that Trump and his people want to make worse is not changing the subject. It’s pointing out that you’re ignoring a genocide. Which you are.
But please tell me who I should vote for to stop that genocide. Give the name of the candidate that would get enough votes to beat Trump.
Because if you wanted someone other than Biden, you shouldn’t have waited until after the primaries started.
Millions of Palestinians are facing starvation right now. They will be dying en-masse before the end of March if something doesn’t change. Joe Biden is supporting this. He just lost There is no equivalence happening within the borders of the United States, except maybe our prison system. Yes the Republicans are setting the ground work for a genocide of queer people in this country. We have to stop them. Insisting that we support a candidate who is clearly losing the election is no way to do this. We can’t afford to lose this election and insisting that Biden be the nominee is insisting we lose this election.
What are you on about? Stop changing the point of the conversation.No one is personally attacking you. We’re talking about what its going to take to keep Trump out of office in 2024, and we disagree about some key points. Why are you making this about you? How narcissist are you? Its creepy and weird. Stick to the points of the conversation please.
like you
And what is that? An advocate for peace and justice? Someone who wants to not have Trump in 2024, no matter what (even if that means Biden isn’t the nominee)? What assumptions are you making?
hey I see and appreciate you, I’m also trans, I literally research justice initiatives for LGBTQ+ and specifically trans* individuals in the USA
but my friend, can we please not compare what’s happening to us to what is happening to Palestinians? This makes us look like ignorant assholes
Trans people might be next in line for literal genocide, but right now we’re experiencing ideological violence more than physical violence
In fact, when we closely examine violence against trans people, the rates of murder and physical violence are only elevated for trans individuals who are poor and people of color. White, middle class trans people are actually less likely to experience physical violence than non-trans poor POCs. That could change depending on political winds, but…
Right now, people in Palestine are experiencing something horrific and unprecedented that eclipses trans suffering in the USA. I am right there with you, afraid of the march of fascism, afraid of what another Trump presidency might bring for our community. But I am not getting airstriked, starved, and war crimed right now. My children are not being shot in the head. I can write about these issues online and in my professional life and not get hung for it. It’s just not the same.
No. It’s not the same. But it is still genocide. As the link shows, it fits that definition. And the person is telling me that I shouldn’t do something to stop that genocide because there’s another genocide that neither Trump nor Biden is going to do anything to stop and both will make worse. It seems to me that Americans should work on stopping the genocide that is happening in our own country with our vote rather than voting for some third party in protest or sitting at home when that has never worked.
You’re not stopping either genocide if you elect the same guy who is currently doing nothing (and is actually actively making them worse) about either of these things. That’s pure cognitive dissonance.
It sounds like you’ve already decided that you want to support genocide in both the US and Palestine, so clearly you should pick Biden or Trump because they’ll both deliver on that.
Maybe there’s a better choice. Maybe you know that better choice. Can you tell me who that better choice with a relatively good chance of winning is so I can vote for them?
Yeah, you’re objectively correct for encouraging people to vote for Biden instead of sit at home in November. Just please, please, please… I deal with offline average joes all the time. If we make one to one comparisons of our situation with that of Palestinians, most people will be disgusted and think we’re incredibly off base.
We are in agreement across the board. I just want to caution you to be mindful of the comparison, is all.
so biden is currently presiding over and doing nothing to stop two genocides? and you want to reward that with an unconditional vote of support, so that next time democrats are in office, they'll know that people don't care?
Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.
And if you can tell me who I should vote for to stop Trump that isn’t Biden, a person that is more likely to get more electoral college votes than Biden will against Trump, please name the person.
biden's only selling point at the moment is that he isn't trump, so with 6 months of campaigning and biden's endorsement you could probably sell any democrat
me giving you a name now is almost entirely pointless given that you're just going to turn around and say that because they haven't already done that campaigning you can't imagine them being popular
Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.
do you or do you not acknowledge that by voting biden you're sending a message to the dnc that their voter base doesn't care about genocide?
I will answer that question after I am told who I should vote for that will stop Trump from getting into office. Because I haven’t been given a name yet despite asking multiple times.
You've literally asked me once, friend, and I explained why me giving you a name wouldn't make any sense.
I fully expect that in the hypothetical world where the DNC decides it doesn't want to lose this election and decides to swap out Biden with somebody else that my gut reaction will be that they're shit, but that's because they haven't done any campaigning yet.
I know for the sake of pride you aren't going to openly acknowledge this, given how pointedly you're refusing to engage with anything I'm saying, but at least admit it to yourself: voting for Biden is sending a signal that the democrats can allow as much genocide as they want so long as they can convince you the other side will be worse.
If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.
The trade-off is stopping Trump from continuing the genocide in the U.S. that he and his Republican friends are already a part of and which my daughter would be a victim of.
So yeah, saving my daughter’s life is sure as hell worth the trade-off.
And I’m pretty amused that you think it sends that message after the primaries. Because the time to challenge Biden was before the primaries.
Did you do anything about that? Did you canvas for any primary rival of Biden’s?
Because if I’m sending a signal to the Democrats that “as much genocide as they want” is okay… unless you’ve been canvassing for Dean Phillips or Marianne Willaimson, I think you have been too.
If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that's twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they're presiding over one, they're going to have solid data that tells them that they don't have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.
Similarly your lack of engaging with the point I keep repeating to you past an unsubstantiated "no" is also an answer.
Yet somehow you bear no responsibility in your criticism.
This is just whataboutism. I could be the guiltiest person on the planet, and that wouldn't change the fact that electing Biden while he's failing to stop three (?) genocides is a clear signal to the DNC that the amount of genocide happening on their watch has little to do with their eventual success or failure.
And yet, the time to do something about that has still passed and you still did nothing about it when you had the time.
I know you want to avoid all culpability and put it on me, but sorry. I’m putting my child first. And that means stopping Trump no matter who the Democrats choose.
Of course it matters if I’m a Democrat. I don’t care about teaching them a lesson. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life.
The fact that you seem to think that voting to stop Trump in order to save my daughter’s life is a moral failing on my part sincerely makes me hope you don’t have any kids.
Sorry, my daughter’s life is the most important thing in the world to me and I would immediately sacrifice my own life to save hers. If you have children and you wouldn’t do the same, I hope someone calls CPS on you.
The funny thing is, you keep saying things like this- “If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that’s twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they’re presiding over one, they’re going to have solid data that tells them that they don’t have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.”
And yet you have clearly not done a single thing about it except berate people on the internet. You have given zero solutions. You obviously did not help to primary him.
Frankly, I’m tired of an armchair quarterback telling me that I’m in favor of genocide because I’m trying to save my daughter’s life. The fucking gall you have.
The inescapable fact is that you're completely unable to provide any justification as to why re-electing Biden while he's failing/not bothering to stop a genocide doesn't signal support from the democratic voter base. (No you don't have to be a registered democrat to count as "part of their voter base", and I don't know why you would think otherwise.)
As I said several comments ago:
If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.
Your one response has been to attempt to put some kind of imaginary guilt on my head, which as I've repeatedly pointed out, changes absolutely nothing about what I've said.
telling me that I’m in favor of genocide
You know full well that at no point have I ever told you you support genocide, but you are inescapably voting in support of it by voting for Biden.
You still don’t get that I don’t give a shit about the Democratic voter base or what re-electing Biden tells them. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life. That’s it.
And you don’t have to tell me that I’m in favor of genocide. You’ve been implying it the entire time.
But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.
Isn’t that exactly what you’re arguing for? The guy currently in office, who you want to re-elect, is the one presiding over both of these genocides. How the hell does re-electing him make things any better?
How exactly does genocide get worse? Are they going to start reanimating the corpses of these dead men, women, and children and then kill them a second time?
Do you (or anyone who thinks not voting for Biden is a smart thing) think that Trump would do anything differently? Because those are the two choices. If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump by taking away votes from Biden… unless you live in a blue or red state where your vote doesn’t matter anyway.
I do blame Biden for how he is handling this situation. However, I am smart enough to understand that there is more than one situation that a president has to handle while in office. For the most part, Biden has honored the wishes of me as a constituent. If the only thing you care about in life is how the President of the US handles a conflict on the other side of the world, as opposed to the US economy, civil rights in the US, US Supreme Court justices, US circuit court judges, environmental policy in the US, etc., then that is your right as a voter. I hate what is going on over in Gaza (and the region in general), but I also care about is going on in the country I live in.
If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump
I'm so tired of this rhetoric. Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them. Americans should not be strong armed into voting for a candidate they don't actually want.
If you're driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don't care enough to vote but they don't really want to go to the buffet because they're not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
But you’ll happily sit on the bus, never questioning why you’re helping to maintain a system that results in such terrible options, and then blame others when that system you help to maintain comes back to bite you in the face.
You can criticize the fact that they didn't vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that's not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you're mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.
This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.
Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.
No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don't think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.
And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.
Vote for neither: 0 vote for either. Midway between the two outcomes.
That being said, voting for neither doesn’t make much sense for anyone in terms of outcome. If you prefer one outcome, it doesn’t make much sense to only use half of the strength of your vote to support that outcome.
Not voting makes more sense if you’re making the argument that the time spent voting isn’t worth the return you get.
Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them.
Voting is like freedom of speech. Everyone is free to vote for whoever they want, but they aren't immune from criticism for how they vote. If someone votes for a guy who says he'll "be a dictator on day one" and encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want", I'm gonna shame that person for supporting such an insupportable candidate who espouses such insane ideas.
If Biden is polling to lose and Trump ends up winning, you’re also supporting Trump by backing a losing candidate and handing the election over to Trump.
To be clear, I was directly responding to someone who was claiming that not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I hate that rhetoric and it's not true. If you want to blame someone for Trump winning, you blame the people that voted for him.
Sure, but you also said not to shame people for how they vote. I responded specifically to that statement and not the others because I understand wanting to vote for a candidate you actually want in office.
Unfortunately, strategic voting has to occur in order for things to get better in the USA. Until we massively overhaul the voting system, voters need to understand that you either vote for the lesser of two evils, or are (albeit passively) contributing to the greater of two evils' ascent to power.
Even far-left progressives like Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky were like, "Dude, you gotta vote for the Democratic candidate or else these crazy far-right candidates are gonna push the country further to the right. At least if the Democratic candidate wins we either stay where we are, or maybe get to move a bit further left during their tenure."
It's a deeply flawed system, but in the general election, it's a simple calculus. There's nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in November because I owe it to our society (and our allies worldwide) to prevent another Trump term.
I said that as a direct response to someone saying not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I wasn't trying to make some general statement. I don't know how else to say that.
If you want to judge a Trump voter for voting for Trump, judge them on that merit. Don't judge someone that didn't vote for Trump if Trump wins, that's bullshit.
Sure, but what I’d say is I’ll still say in this fricken 2 party system, you also have to justify not going for the lesser of two evils, however you define that. And if your position is “I want someone to stop Israel continuing their war on Hamas”, you also have to contend with the idea that neither option is likely to do what you want. This just reads to me like throwing a fit that mommy brought you peas instead of beans with your dinner and saying you want daddy, when he’s not bringing any food at all.
I don't have to justify not voting for the lesser evil when I can vote for an option that is, in my opinion of course, not evil at all. I encourage every American to vote, and vote for who you actually want to be the President, not just against who you don't want.
At first, I thought you weren’t American and weren’t aware of how the system works.
I’m not American, but I do know that if you live somewhere where your vote matters, you would improving Trump’s odds of winning.
If your riding already has a victor predetermined, then sure, vote for whomever you want. But if you’re in a swing state or anything like that, then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.
You can hate how it works all you want, but it won’t change the reality of the situation.
then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.
No, it doesn't, and loops right back around to the rhetoric that started my whole comment chain here.
A vote for Trump helps Trump win. If Trump got no votes, Trump would not win. The responsibility for electing Trump rests squarely on the shoulders of those who voted for Trump. No one else.
Okay but we’re in a 2 party system. It sucks, but it is what it is. It’s either Biden or Trump winning no matter how you feel on the matter.
Both of them support Israel, one with slowly(very slowly, yes) waning support and the other essentially saying he’d gladly help turn Palestine into rubble.
Domestically, Biden has been doing pretty good. The rail strike was a fiasco but besides that he’s mostly been a small step forward from Obama.
Meanwhile, Trump is Trump. His first term was a complete disaster for the country, and now he’s outright saying he’ll be a dictator rounding up the “enemy”, he’s saying he won’t defend our allies from Russia, he’s well and truly dementia-addled now(Mercedes? oof), etc…
Voting for Trump is far worse obviously, but not voting against him still makes it more likely he wins. Just as you have the freedom to make that decision, I have the freedom to judge the shit out of you for it.
Okay but we’re in a 2 party system. It sucks, but it is what it is. It’s either Biden or Trump winning no matter how you feel on the matter.
Ever consider that we only get to choose between these two parties because people like you fear mongering and demanding everyone maintain the status quo?
If it’s guaranteed that Trump or Biden are winning then elections are obviously foregone conclusions, our votes don’t really matter, and neither party has any reason to ever change because they’re guaranteed to hold at least 50% of power at any given time. We might as well eliminate ballots and just automatically declare a winner based on party registration numbers.
This is rhetoric from party loyalists who don’t give a shit about the country. It’s the Democratic version of MAGA, people who actively vote against their own best interests just to ‘stick it to the other guy,’ while the country crumbles and the rest of us suffer.
The Democratic Party is well past due for a purging. If they won’t do it themselves, I honestly won’t be mad to see them face the MAGAts they helped raise. Trump is 80 years old and has had a lifetime of cheeseburgers and spray tans, in the worst case scenario, he’ll last five years and America would be better off in the long term for it.
If you really think the US would be better off in the long term if Trump gets elected, then you obviously haven’t paid attention to the very long term damage he did while in office. Trump 1 got to replace 3 justices. Biden has had the chance to replace 1. With looming retirements of a couple justices, Trump 2 would get to replace another 2. That would cement a 5 to 4 ultra-conservative Supreme Court for a good 20 years. Additionally, his tax cuts for the wealthy and refusal to raise interest rates weren’t exactly great for long term stability of our economy.
I agree with the D’s needing to have a wholesale change of leadership, though.
Comservativism is a race to the bottom; its a naturally implosive idealogy. Yes, America will be better off in the long term (read: more than five years) once the Dinocrats are put out to pasture and the MAGAts kill each other in a power vacuum after Trump kicks the bucket. America needs a revolution - any revolution - and the Dems are married to the status quo. I think most actual leftists in America are waking up to the idea that they are a dead-end for actual change and the only possible route for things to get better is by weathering a decade of Trumpism and building new from the damage that is promised to bring.
The top of the wishlist of any reasonable and rational American should be, “Don’t permit a fascist demagogue to become a petty tyrant.” Biden fulfills that order handily, and if that’s not enough for someone to get them to vote for him, then the blame lies with that voter.
If Biden can’t beat a fascist demagogue and petty tyrant and Trump ends up winning, then I’d argue it’s your fault for backing a losing candidate over someone who actually might have actually defeated Trump. The blame would fall squarely on your shoulders.
Oh, not the party loyalists like yourself who would rather back a losing candidate than allow a winner to run in their place?
Have you ever stopped to consider how someone could find a bloated, orange maniac more appealing than the guy you’re trying to shame everyone into voting for and what that says about your political views?
Sanders would bring in the most, make him the nominee and you would keep the never trumpers, bring in some moderates, lose some moderates.
The math comes down to would the amount of moderates/independents you lose to apathy or trump, double points for the ones who would vote trump instead of sanders since the other team gains 1 and you lose 1, compared to how many moderates/independents and how many leftists you get.
No, it’s not. You don’t sub out a candidate with someone who, nine months before the election, has no interest in running for the office. That’s a pipe dream doing nothing but distracting you from the reality that it’s going to be Biden vs. Trump, and despite how imperfect you feel Biden is, you’re going to have to vote for him, because the alternative is fascist authoritarianism.
Come November, Sanders will be voting for Biden. I suggest you follow his lead.
Absolutely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Biden will be the nominee against Trump, regardless of what happens in Palestine. Doing anything besides voting for him is holding the door open for fascism to take over when Trump takes power.
You either do the bare minimum to stop Trump by voting for his only viable opponent, or you let him come to power with your blessing. Those are the only two options in November.
The top of the wishlist of any reasonable and rational American should be, “Don’t permit a fascist demagogue to become a petty tyrant.” Biden fulfills that order handily, and if that’s not enough for someone to get them to vote for him, then the blame lies with that voter.
Right now, today, supporting Biden any further is handing Trump a W.
Biden has lost the election at this point. It would be the biggest election upset of ALL TIME if he came back to win it. No incumbent this far down in the polling has EVER won an election.
If you truly want to stop Trump, stop brow beating people into supporting a lost cause and work to have a conversation around how we can get a better candidate. I think Shawn Fein.
And Obama solidly lost his election against Romney if you looked at polls this far out. A strong case can be made that polls at this point are not predictive.
I think Shawn Fein.
Ignoring the fact that mine and most American's immediate reaction to this is "Who?", the fact that he has zero experience in elected office will be disqualifying to most people. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to see him in some sort of office some day, but this is not a serious suggestion.
Also, to quote him:
Proud to cast my vote for President @JoeBiden today, the first day of early in-person voting in the state of Michigan!
Oh god, finally gave a name. Who the hell is Shawn Fein? If I haven’t already heard of them, it’s a lost cause too - because they have no brand recognition. This is the dilemma and one I’ve been banging on about since before Obama. It’s kind of insane the Democratic party seems to hope for a repeat of that once in a lifetime basically out of nowhere candidate / win. For reasons I don’t get, Democrats are not building up people in advance to be candidates. So people have at least heard of them.
The problem is as far as I know there aren’t any well known middle aged democrats who could run that have any national stance. Schumer is also too old, Bernie is also too old, and then there’s the sexism that makes me question if Warren could run, and then there’s the racism that makes Kamala and Cortez pretty unlikely to get far either.
I thought the entire four years that Democrats needed to have someone in the news and convince Biden to back them a year ago. That didn’t happen. We already lost this years ago if Biden can’t win it. I’m just still amazed that there’s any support for Trump (well, ever, but certainly after the facts of his first term).
Point taken on Shawn Fein. He is the UAW president, and got Biden to come down to the picket line.
But overall, almost 100% agree. I don’t see any current Democrats with ‘enough’ of the right stuff to get handed the reigns and win. Its why I’m looking outside the party. I really think if Jon Stewart were to throw his hat in, he could win. He’s young enough, he doesn’t have the baggage that an existing candidate has, people know him, he’s a darling of the left. He’s been politically active although he hasn’t run (point against I supposed, but not a deal breaker. Didn’t stop Trump did it?).
Biden has blown this campaign with his position on Israel. He needs to drive voters out, and he’s pulling a classic Democrat move of just assuming that the support for him is there. The ship is sinking. This is a five-alarm fire moment. He has no opponents in this primary and is losing support. You don’t win elections like that.
If the liberals are going to keep insisting that we support Biden even though it becomes more and more clear as time goes on that he isn’t going to win, I don’t know where that leaves us. I don’t want to suffer through what Trump will do to this country. If Trump wins, I’d be shocked if we even have elections again. Expect every non-cis person in this country to be rounded up and executed. I don’t think its hyperbole to suggest that. I think the right would do that today if they had the power.
Looks like the US is going to get some tough love.
Turns out you can’t just fund, supply and cast UN vetoes in support of the genocide of an entire people and still get unconditional support at the ballot box, whoda thunkit.
And yes, the consequences are going to be hideous.
I guess you should have thought of that, what with everyone telling you over and over and over.
Cabin in the Woods moment, and you brought it on yourselves.
The hypocrisy of the Heinrich Böll Foundation (and the German government in general) is incredible.
Here you have a Jewish person who is a journalist and a renowned political thinker who was being given the award for being someone who "reports on power games and totalitarian tendencies as well as civil disobedience and the love of freedom".
They 100% have the position, right, and accuracy to be comparing the state of Gaza currently to the WWII ghettos.
Edit: Something else to note. The Foundation made this statement ""But Masha Gessen's views should not be honored with a prize intended to commemorate the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt".
And I can't help but laugh. Do they not know Arendt's past stance on Israel? She was literally one of the first world-renowned Jewish anti-Zionists.
I feel like it’s a lot closer to “well those fuckin’ Nazi wingnuts seem like they’re gonna start something at some point soon, so I think it’d be prudent to have some contingency plans”. That’s where my head is, at least.
The biggest difference is that they will face both police and National Guard if they try. It will be like the GOP response to the BLM protest with heavily armed troops, tanks, and helicopters.
You… know how many problems the police and military have with white supremacy in their ranks, right?
This is the legacy of the confederacy. There are a nontrivial number of people in law enforcement and the armed forces who unironically want to bring it back.
Can't wait for the revolutionaries to oust the old guard only to replace them with either the same thing or something worse like has been done since the dawn of time. I am still of the mind that the current order can be fixed without throwing everything away and risking something worse in the process. It has been done before with labor rights movements in the 1900s. It can be done again without major violence or uprooting our entire governing and economic structure which so many here are eager to do.
You really think the labor movement had no blood or major upheavals? You think it was just talks and everyone agreed to be better?
No. People died. Factories shut down. People not involved had to make changes to their lives because they could get items they wanted. Government projects were stopped due to not having access to materials.
I don’t know what glassy-eyed take you have on the labor movement but it wasn’t a clean change. It screwed a lot of stuff up and ruined entire lives. But it made everything better in the end. Corporation owners will not let go easily and we should never expect them to.
This, but don't reform, abolish and build new. Our current oppressive systems are insidious and will rise back up through whatever crack they find. We need to create a society that would categorically stomp them out when they do.
Excellent timing. In a conversation I learned only yesterday that Red Neck wasn’t always a pejorative term. The miners wore red neckerchiefs. They were workers standing up to the man / system. It’s been completely changed in meaning deliberately, or so I was told, as part of the effort to erase them from history. Seems possible to me.
Also, there’s apparently no mention of this class battle in West Virginia history books. Anyone here able to verify that?
You need a two hand approach, the larger peaceful movement and a smaller more aggressive movement to lead toward success. MLK & Malcolm X during the Civil Rights Movement is the example you want to set. You sway public opinion by showing violent actions committed against the unarmed peaceful protestors. You pressure by have your more aggressive wing just be themselves. Throughout American history this has been the path to change. The aggressive side doesn’t even need to be violent, they just have to be intimidating and scare the MAGAs. That us enough for them to attack the peaceful protestors who they will attack because they are cowards who crave conformity.
I’ve seen a lot of instigating comments and posts here on Lemmy today. Protect yourselves, but don’t go instigating in a violent way against people and their homes, it’s a distraction and gives people a reason to go after you.
As the Lever helped expose last year, Leo’s judicial activism was supercharged in 2021 when a conservative surge protector magnate secretly funneled $1.6bn to his new dark money fund – the largest known political advocacy donation in US history.
Even the design of the student debt case reeks of Leo’s involvement, since just like the Colorado suit, it appears to have been based on DC machinations. As the Lever reported, the student loan servicer at the heart of the case – whom Republican attorneys general argued would be harmed by Biden’s student loan plan – would in reality face no financial harm at all.
The US has a serious problem about the impartiality of the SCOTUS. Dems not going hard to fix the problem is not helping the situation. Future of US Legal System is not looking good for the average Joe.
There's no obligation to do business with anyone in free market economy. The verdict is obvious - coercion isn't acceptable solution as it infringes on fundamental freedom of citizens
The basic principle is reasonable, but it leads directly to allowing businesses to go back to a "no blacks" policy. So it's one of those basic principles that just doesn't work in the real world in its pure form and needs to bend for the sake of a functional society.
No, the alternative is to not put racial conditions on your customers. I have no idea how you interpreted my position to be "well we've got to be racist against someone!"
The “tolerance paradox” is a handy tool with which to justify violence by those on both sides. If I’m just fighting intolerance, then my actions are justified. It’s a common rally cry used by authoritarians to stamp out diversity and democracy. To really hammer the point home, the Nazis were the first to employ it. By blaming their issues on the “intolerance” of foreign states, they justified a global war. It is obviously the inspiration for Popper’s 1945 work, The Open Society and Its Enemies. Russia is currently using this fallacy to justify the war in Ukraine, claiming that the West is “intolerant” of Russia, and they need to defend themselves against this intolerance.
I think any business who will refuse to serve the LGBTQ community should be forced to put up a sign on their door of business that says "No LGBTQ allowed". Put this on their websites and commercials too.
That way the Public knows what to expect. They are open to the public so we have a right to know.
Aha. This may be why Threads is based on ActivityPub - a way to prevent accusations of it being a Twitter clone. It's just an innocent member of the Fediverse. ;)
Yep. Being a part of the fediverse gives Meta a defensible argument that (1) they are not stealing Twitter’s intellectual property as Mastodon already exists and (2) they are not monopolizing the Twitter-like social media environment as any of their users could move to Mastodon if they wanted to.
@OldFartPhil Anyway... maybe with "intellectual property" they mean another thing? I mean... if Meta is a Twitter clone, Twitter was a identi.ca clone too.
The second point may actually be very true. This way they are a smaller target for anti-trust investigations in case Twitter is completely obsoleted by Threads.
Examples of the “do’s” - Gatekeeper platforms will have to:
allow third parties to inter-operate with the gatekeeper’s own services in certain specific situations
allow their business users to access the data that they generate in their use of the gatekeeper’s platform
provide companies advertising on their platform with the tools and information necessary for advertisers and publishers to carry out their own independent verification of their advertisements hosted by the gatekeeper
allow their business users to promote their offer and conclude contracts with their customers outside the gatekeeper’s platform
The interoperability is the big one. Being federated means that Threads isn't considered a "gatekeeper platform". I wouldn't be surprised if Instagram and maybe even Facebook itself start to federate as well. Since Threads isn't currently connected to the wider fediverse, that's probably why they're not in the EU yet.
This also means that fears of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" are likely overblown. Breaking fediverse interoperability means that they'd be a gatekeeper again and subject to EU regulations against gatekeepers. Interestingly, both Twitter and Reddit are now likely subject to being considered gatekeepers due to making their APIs effectively inaccessible.
Very good point! I don’t think the threat from Meta is technological, they also seem to be good citizens on the the open source projects they collaborate on.
I am far more concerned about how Threads is going to change the community. Not the vapid influencer crap, but the toxicity, divisiveness, bigotry and disinformation coming out of Facebook.
The second point only works once they meaningfully federate and stay meaningfully federated.
But more importantly:
There is probably no Twitter IP at issue. There could be some patents, hard to guess, but I imagine Meta and Twitter have a cross license, or at least a detente because they could sue each other so hard that only the lawyers would win.
Edit: Oh, Twitter is accusing Facebook of misappropriating trade secrets. It's theoretically possible that one or two laid off twitter employees reused some trade secret information, but... I feel like this is a fishing expedition, Twitter doesn't actually have any suspicion that Facebook did that, they just wanna be dicks about it.
They can't be monopolizing this space while Twitter still has almost all the market share. They could be accused of attempting to monopolize if they did things like predatory pricing, but that's a hard case to make, and even if they do gain market share, at this point, it's going to be because of Twitter actively ruining its own product and throwing its large positive network effect advantage right in the trash. Nobody could possibly blame Facebook for that, Twitter would never win, even in a country that did enforce antitrust laws against tech companies.
Just one fascist Putin-puppet meeting with another fascist Putin-puppet for a nice discussion about fascism and what their boss wants.
In all seriousness though, it doesn’t get anymore blatant than this. Orbán has consistently acted in Putin’s interests, and now he is meeting with Trump.
So true. Remember when Trump created his own ministry of truth? Or when Trump tried to make people give up their medical autonomy in order to keep providing food to their families? Or when Trump said the opposing party was an extremist movement and a threat to democracy?
Yea, neither Biden nor Trump have the official party endorsement yet. Presidential elections in the US usually last between two and five years depending on how you define them.
That’s not really true. Primaries weren’t rigged in the Rupublican primaries in 2016. They voted Trump in despite what the RNC wanted. It was the Dem’s primary that was rigged (and turned a bunch of people off of voting in the main election, and it seems those people still haven’t learned anything).
How were the Dem primaries rigged. I still see lots of people claim this to this day. But no one has ever presented evidence. I voted for Sanders in 2016 and 2020 primaries. But legitimately more people voted for Clinton in 2016. She also won more delegates. She won fair and square. Now do I think there needs to be a better process? Absolutely. But in the system democrats have used for the last 30 to 40 years Sanders lost fairly despite a strong showing.
The superdelegates, which in 2016 made up about 15% of the delegates, were not elected and are not beholden to any voters, they just chose whichever candidate they wanted, and 604 out of 651 went for Clinton immediately, which meant Bernie started off at an immediate disadvantage.
There’s this idea that if it’s technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But that’s ridiculous. If someone starts off at a major advantage over their competition, the system is rigged for them. If, in the general election, one candidate started off with 75 electoral votes because some unelected people just decided they liked that candidate, I imagine we would call that system rigged in favor of that candidate (even if it is technically possible for their opponent to win). Not only that, but starting off at such a deficit for what would already have been considered a close race is likely to make those who might have voted for Bernie just not bother showing up.
So yes, I’d say the primary was rigged against Bernie. And the Democrats seem to agree, because they got rid of superdelegates for the initial vote, because everyone was pissed.
The DNC used that system FOR DECADES. They didn’t implement it in 2015 to snub Sanders. And as shitty as it was. It was better than what they had before. This, this is why no one rightfully takes you seriously. Or shows any respect. Hyperbolic, disingenuous BS.
Nice projection. What was this change and how did it impact things. If you are so certain about this. There’s a reason you aren’t saying. And it’s not not because I’m the one arguing in bad babe. Not at all. It’s because if you actually point out the change it wouldn’t really support the claims being made. Better to have the innuendo unsupported.
Their primary system was rigged for decades. It was used to support establishment candidates and make it harder for social democrats and leftys to win because the democratic party is owned by corporate America and has been for decades
That’s not rigged. Rigged requires an intent to deceive. They were always open and up front about how the system worked. Sanders knew about it even if you still refuse to understand. And Sanders never claimed it was rigged.
Was it not as democratic as it could have been. Absolutely. Was it worlds more democratic than when only the party chose before. Absolutely. Was it rigged. No.
That’s untrue. Rigged means intentionally structured to achieve a certain outcome. Regardless, the concept of a “free and democratic” has obvious connotations and intended implications regarding the level playing field associated with that process. The DNC did not have a level playing field which is why so many believe that it is rigged, and why so many will continue to believe that until monumental structural reforms are achieved, as well as admissions of wrongdoing for prior behavior. Comments like this won’t change anyone’s mind, and will just reinforce the idea that Democrats refuse to self-reform or listen to popular backlash
You’re apparently forgetting the head of the DNC that got fired for giving debate questions to Clinton.
You’re also apparently forgetting the DNC argument in court that because they are a private organization that they didn’t have to abide by their own rules requiring fairness.
None of those are even touching the super delegate issues that others commented on.
So, The DNC gave Clinton the questions. And then they fired the head as a patsy? Or the head gave Clinton the questions and the DNC who didn’t rig things fired her over it.
The parties, the candidates, the PACs, and the media are all theoretically (and in many cases, legally bound to be) separate entities, acting independently. But in reality, a lot of them share the same interests, and so some things happen that aren’t exactly collusion or breaking any rules, but do give an advantage to one candidate, which many voters consider unfair.
In the case of the 2016 DNC primary, I think the critical objection is not the existence of superdelegates, but how they were presented in the media.
Clinton hovered between 54%-59% of the pledged delegates, but the media coverage would consistently include superdelegates in the count, showing Clinton ahead by 600 or so delegates, giving her “70% of the total count, and making her the presumptive nominee! The Sanders campaign doesn’t have any chance of coming back from this!” …before most of the country had even voted.
This kind of thing happens all the time, with lots of stuff, and it’s not technically “rigging”.
But seeing an official-looking number on TV – that you know, provably, doesn’t reflect the reality of the ongoing election… That feels, to many people, like it’s “rigged”.
I mean rigged when I say rigged. But yes I agree with a lot of your other points. The system absolutely should be more democratic and clearer. And our media should absolutely be constantly rebuked for the shit show it is.
I have no love for the system or democrats. But I really think all this talk about it being “rigged” nearly a decade on. Realistically is keeping us from improving the situation or finding better solutions. Instead grinding some perceived axe. While people, we all would likely be United against are United themselves getting things that we hate done. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz definitely earned plenty of that ire though.
Trump isn't going to reverse the underlying issues that have put pricing of houses out of reach. The various issues have been bubbling since the 2008 crash because we didn't actually solve the underlying problems. Risky investment tied to critical banking functions means that we're at a Mexican standoff for how to solve poor investment. We let the banks fail and watch as the US dollar collapses or we bail them out making it okay for them to continue doing the thing that keeps getting them into trouble.
The pandemic, which note Trump was still in office when it was going on, really accelerated the underlying issues. To the point that the FED could not continue the free money party that they had going since 2009. This is literally why Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, they had way too much riding on the lower interest rate, free money from the FED that when the FED began the rate increases, poof it was all gone.
That's one of the main issues with housing and Trump couldn't change it if he wanted to. Decrease the interest rate again and you overheat the various markets, you'll be supercharging inflation in no time. This period of pain was bound to happen, we just kept kicking the can down till it could literally no longer be kicked. The only other way that can fix this, is taxes. We've gotten past all the other options because we just didn't want to be "THAT GUY" who enacted policy that hurt everyone. So now, really the only solution Congress has left is fiscal policy. Either we stop spending not like a little, like a shit ton of cash, or we need to massively increase taxes.
We're kind of running ourselves out of options here that won't turn the dollar into worthless paper. So Trump couldn't fix this if he wanted to, unless he can convince everyone under 50 that they'll have to keep paying into social security but basically get no benefit when it's their turn. And military funding would have to seriously go down, something that quite a few (not everyone clearly) folks in Alabama are still a bit upset about them losing their jobs so that Trump could redirect their military funding towards the wall.
So this was coming, the pandemic just made it to where we could no longer ignore it. Yeah, duh, no President actively told the FED to begin hiking the rate because everyone loves free money and nobody wanted to be the downer, but it was eventually going to happen. It just happened in the last year of Trump so it comes over into Biden's term.
If you really want to be upset about the matter, blame Obama (which that still wouldn't be technically correct) for not enacting laws to divest banking institutions from housing investments. Home loans should be to further the American dream, not some broker's get rich quick scheme. And that's really why Trump wouldn't do anything to address the matter, he has directly profited off of property investment and the exact (legal yes) schemes that create the trap door that lead to the housing crisis.
You're literally asking a guy to pretty please, not do his bread and butter so that some folks he's never met and likely didn't vote for him can get a house. Of all the things people tend to think Trump is, I've never heard a single supporter attribute to him altruism. Tough on whatever, sure. But never being the kind of person who's just wanting to give things away freely for the benefit of others.
So yeah, if you think Biden isn't going to fix the issues, Trump sure as hell won't either. It's silly to think otherwise. So, no one is actually going to fix it until we hit that point where the lack of home ownership is itself a problem in America that's reach crisis level. And at that point it'll be taxpayers bailing banks who have to write houses off their ledgers AND THEN, finally the issue will be "fixed" in that folks will be able to afford housing again. Until the next banking crisis the banks create for themselves.
You have? Like, it’s been a clear influence in the policies of his administration. I’m my opinion, it would be pretty short sighted to turn that influence into disdain.
And wouldn’t you know it, there’s a lot more to an administration than their stance on Israel. Stop trying to boil everything down to truisms and catchphrases. If you really don’t think that the left has had a sizeable impact on Biden’s admin, we don’t really have a lot to talk about here.
The left has had a sizeable impact on Biden’s domestic policies. Including the Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan, and the Bipartisan infrastructure Law.
The Biden administration has been funding and arming the Israeli genocide of Gaza
Both are true. And genocide is the worst thing a country can do. I learned that in 6th grade when we learned about the importance of ensuring “Never Again” re: the Holocaust
I just don’t understand the pragmatism here. You sit the election out, Trump wins, Gaza is leveled for a mega church the next week and American democracy is in danger. You sit the election out, Biden wins, he now gives 0 fucks about your leverage in his second term because he doesn’t need it. You vote, Trump wins, Gaza still gets leveled for the mega church. You vote, Biden wins, progressives now have leverage to force Biden into a harsher stance on Israel in his second term, exactly like you’ve been doing already in his first.
Subtlety and nuance have never been a strength of populist movements, but the left should really examine their impact on Biden’s Israel stance. No, he hasn’t completely blown up our relationship with Israel, but this is the harshest stance America has taken against Israel possibly since its inception. I’m one of the huge percentage who want further action done to bring Israel to heel, but my only realistic avenue to achieve that is by continuing to exact the leverage I have while keeping that leverage intact.
Frankly, if you want anything more, the left needs to grow and get more powerful. Objectively right now, they are weaker than the major political parties, which is what has forced them into this relationship. If you want a president who is going to give you your deepest wishes with no concessions, you’re going to need to get a hell of a lot stronger. Frankly, because of that lack of pragmatism and political capital, I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.
You vote, Biden wins, progressives now have leverage to force Biden into a harsher stance on Israel in his second term
I don’t see how voting for a hypothetically successful Biden candidacy would create any leverage on Biden. He is term limited and cannot run for reelection if he wins in November. And even if Kamala/Newsom/Whitmer/etc want to win in 2028, I don’t see how anti-Zionists uniformly voting for Biden in 2024 will have any bearing on their development of policy re:Israel. If anything, voting for him in November despite Israel’s genocide seems to demonstrate that Israel can do whatever it wants, including exterminating the Palestinians, and Dems still won’t meaningfully lose any votes. It’s the same concept as Trump saying he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and not lose any votes - here, it seems that Dems/Biden can do anything including funding and arming a genocide, and, under your hypothetical, they won’t lose any votes. How does that enable anti-Zionists to get leverage? If anything, it encourages establishment politicians to disregard anti-Zionists and take them for granted.
Also,
Subtlety and nuance have never been a strength of populist movements, but the left should
I’m not bothered by this, but this sort of rhetoric is highly unpersuasive and will not cause you to persuade anyone to your point of view, which I assume is your goal. It makes it less likely that people will agree with you when you insult them. Especially when you imply there is something innate about them that prevents them from being as rational as you. It’s othering, and it creates resentment, not changed views
You admit above that progressives have used leverage to have a large influence on the Biden admin. It’s the same principle. Biden makes promises to get elected, which you then hold him to during his term. You did it with student aid (even if the Supreme Court squashed the largest one), you did it with the FTC, you did it with the climate and infrastructure bills. You had to compromise, because of course other people have power and leverage to use, but you got solid returns. You could flip your argument on term limits on its head and say he would be even more unconstrained to pursue the agenda his voters want.
Can you answer me on what the alternative does? Trump is not going to be an anti Zionist. He’s going to hurt more Palestinians, harder. He’s going to devastate international relations and create similar crises across the globe, which will hurt even more people. At what point do you take responsibility for those genocides you didn’t help to prevent? At what point do people’s lives override strict principles?
I’m sorry, you’re right that I shouldn’t be slinging that sort of thing. On that same token, myself and a lot of others have been called “genocidal” and various other things for the belief that it’s not as simple as Biden just yeeting every ounce of support out of Israel because of the broader context of the middle east.
To be clear, I love the left. They are America’s heart and lead with empathy, which is so sorely needed in politics. I just think that the left, as a combined group, lacks pragmatism in favor of principle. That tendency has led to the left not having any true power for a century, and that’s only if you consider FDR a leftist, which a hell of a lot of leftists would not. I need wins. I need rights. The democrats deliver that for me. Not always, but I have multiple rights as a gay woman that I would not have without them. So like, nothing would make me happier than the left infecting and overtaking the democratic party. Please do it! But until then, I think it’s foolish to use the left’s leverage this way. It’s cruel to those you leave behind when you sit at home. It’s cruel to those who will be affected by the genocides that will be started and strengthened by a Trump admin. It’s cruel for the sake of political gamesmanship, which is exactly what the democratic party is accused of constantly.
You had to compromise, because of course other people have power and leverage to use, but you got solid returns
Agreed
You could flip your argument on term limits on its head and say he would be even more unconstrained to pursue the agenda his voters want.
Biden is a zionist. If left unconstrained he would be even more supportive of Israel than he currently is. He doesn’t like the brutality of the current genocide because it’s bad optics. But he agrees with the ultimate result of Israel waging total war and permanently annexing Gaza. Once he is reelected he will have no accountability at all on this issue - and he only is accountable to a very modest extent currently because he needs to win Michigan in November. Once November is over that won’t be the case.
Can you answer me on what the alternative does? Trump is not going to be an anti Zionist. He’s going to hurt more Palestinians, harder. He’s going to devastate international relations and create similar crises across the globe, which will hurt even more people.
Agreed.
So it seems that the options that our system has presented us with are voting either for an active genocide, or voting for the creation of additional genocides in addition to escalation of the current one. If that is the choice the system offers us then aren’t we compelled to restructure the United States and replace our system itself? At the very least, violence and death required to sustain our country must be fully acknowledged and its truth must be exposed. Biden and the United States are causing the occurrence of a genocide. If that is our least harmful option then Xi and Putin (who are worse than us) are correct to use this as an opportunity to permanently destroy American/Western moral clarity.
Don’t sell your rage short. It is one of the constraints on a president’s behavior.
And in favor of what? Putin or Xi’s moral clarity? I’m unhappy with the situation in Gaza, but as flawed as the West might be, I’m of the opinion that it creates much fewer human rights atrocities. I want it improved and refined, not dismantled. In the absence of stability, do you really think leftism is what is going to rise out of the ashes? Like, really consider what you’re advocating for here. How do you fight a genocide in Gaza by dismantling our own democracy at home and kicking off hundreds more in the struggle to fill the void of American hegemony? Again, I find myself questioning the pragmatism of these options.
I genuinely see a path to a better tomorrow through maintaining our democracy long enough for the boomers to age out a bit more and then filling that vacuum with a more leftist party to contend with the more centrist democrats. Even better would be a growing and pragmatic left that uses bargaining, cooperation, and political capital to achieve their ends. Getting back to a sane form of “bipartisanship” once we have rubbed the modern conservative populist movement into the ground. Rivals that can at least agree on the fundamentals of humanity.
At the end of the day, I want to flip the general leftist position. I’m a social democrat. I’m super open to a ton of leftist positions. Why would I want to vote for the left right now? They’re angry, disorganized, almost powerless, refuse to compromise, and the rising populism movement’s inability to perceive and work with the nuances of government are extremely concerning. I hear more about what’s wrong from them than I ever do an actual solution.
I need solutions and I need us to remain on the rails so those improvements can be made. Asking for the country to collapse is just cruel to so many people. Possibly literal magnitudes above a genocide in Gaza.
Elvis Presley’s Suspicious Minds – was followed by the tinny sound of Justice for All, a rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner sung by defendants jailed over their alleged roles in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
Their alleged roles?!?! YOU FUCKS goddammit Guardian what the motherfucking hell are you doing? They were convicted by a court of law there’s no alleged about it!! FOR FUCK’S SAKE.
well that and they where on video that they took of the event! in case anyone wants to go with the oh the court is rigged or something. definately no alleged about it.
McCarthy: “hard-right Republicans want to burn the whole place down!”
Moderate Democrats: “so you’ll work with us instead, to pass legislation that keeps the lights on, and addresses some of the problems we both agree exist?”
Exactly. The path forward is clear. Work with moderate Democrats to craft a bipartisan spending bill that most Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. Well either side get everything it wants? No, but that’s how compromise works.
Of course the Freedom Caucus will be angry, but let’s face it - they’re always angry. (Hulk Smash makes for a good movie, but not for good politics.) If McCarthy works with Democrats and the saner Republicans, though, the power of the Freedom Caucus will be blunted. They can file to remove McCarthy all they like, but part of the deal with the Democrats could be that they’ll vote to keep McCarthy.
Instead, McCarthy will complain while hoping that the Freedom Caucus members suddenly become reasonable.
In an insane world it’s the sane that seem insane. This is the most logical solution to all of McCarthy’s problems but it will seem so crazy to him that he won’t go for it. Battle seat Republicans are already talking about working with Democrats to solve this problem. All of this use to be a nonissue because surprise surprise people in a long far away time once voted over party lines to get shit done, just as you said.
That was before the Republican Party adopted “owning the libs” as their only platform item.
If McCarthy does anything with any Dems, it doesn’t seem crazy to him, he just knows it’ll result in a primary battle where his opponents will roll out his record of working with the enemy (which they’ve convinced a large portion of their voters, are pedos and election thieves).
Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him. He could play this like an intelligent human being and still keep his job, so long as he’s willing to weather a bit of right-wing media blowback for the next few months. He just has to strike a bipartisan deal, like he’s supposed to.
Working with the Dems will make his next Primary difficult, he hasn’t got that long before that comes around again. This is what he, and a lot of the more moderate republicans are really scared of, being cut off from the grift by their own party.
You’re right, but it’s certainly a calculation that will change as pressure mounts. Is the political cost of working on a bipartisan compromise bigger than the cost of a shutdown he’ll be blamed for? Right now, maybe not. Over time? It might very well get there. It’s a lose-lose proposition at the moment, he just has to decide which loss he’s more afraid of.
To have a functioning government. There’s 0 chance there will be a democratic speaker. There’s a pretty good chance nothing works, and normal people don’t get paid for weeks or months if bipartisanship is out.
It’s the Internet, no one takes anything seriously here 🙄
Leaving that aside, extraction of fossil fuels is going to fucking kill everyone and has bipartisan support. Also making war with Russia and pushing for war with China, two nuclear powers. Also filling the ocean with plastic, chopping down the forests, making new pandemics in factory farms, and many other new horrors.
If you aren’t alarmed you aren’t paying attention.
Whatever deal they make will mean more money for the military, more money for drilling, more money for mining, more money for deforestation, and more money for brinkmanship.
A lot of that falls under essential services and will continue to be done whether or not the money is there. Additionally, if the democrats had a super majority and trifecta, do you think that would actually change?
That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.
Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.
That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.
I don’t disagree. I’m just saying Dems could offer to vote to keep him in his position in exchange for a bipartisan deal. That doesn’t mean they capitulate completely, just that they offer him something he wants (his job) in exchange for something they want.
Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.
I didn’t say they’ve asked or are responsible for agreeing to anything, please follow the whole thread. I was responding to someone who said he’d lose his job if he worked with Dems on a bipartisan deal. He wouldn’t if they threw him the bone of a vote to keep him if his caucus moves to vacate him as Speaker. I’m not commenting on the likelihood of anything like this happening, simply that it’s possible.
He is completely beholden to the far right. The approval votes by the far right were what got him just about enough votes to get him into Speakership. If they turn on him, he'll be kicked out for sure.
If he tries that, even the moderate republicans will pull their votes for him.
Also, even if that somehow did work, the Democrats will likely then pull their votes because they want a Democrat as speaker. The Democrats might not be Republicans, but they sure as hell are not above this kind of partisanship
Moderate Democrats: “so you’ll work with us instead, to pass legislation that keeps the lights on, and addresses some of the problems we both agree exist?”
Uhhh, isn’t that kind of what McCarthy actually did? He worked closely with President Biden to put this budget together and it seems to be a big reason why the Freedom Caucus morons are pitching a fit.
Not at all. McCarthy got the deal he thought he could sell to his team.
McCarthy working with the Democrats in Congress would mean getting a deal way more Democrat friendly, and forgetting about even trying to appease the freedom Caucus.
Yeah, everyone underestimates how many left leaning to far left people there are that are not only armed, but quite willing to defend each other as well as themselves.
@southsamurai the liberalgunowners magazine on Kbin has unfortunately not been very active but there are indeed a shit ton of us out there and not fucking happy about being threatened
For all the cries about it being political persecution, I haven’t seen anyone prove any of the evidence being used against him is false. Courts don’t take up cases without merit. The actual abuse going on is a minority of politicians trying to suppress the will of the American people.
These crybabies won’t do anything to start a civil war. They’re spread too far apart, they don’t have enough of their own resources, and if somehow they were able to break off some piece of the country, who is going to be trade or political partners with a cesspool that is still surrounded by a super power and it’s friendly neighbors? This isn’t the 1770s or the 1860s. They have no powerful support abroad. This isn’t a group of people with plans. Just a bunch of scammers pulling a long con on rubes.
Ignore them. Let them eat themselves. Let them keep telling us who they really are. From watching the debates, half of them seem tired of this BS themselves.
For all the cries about it being political persecution, I haven’t seen anyone prove any of the evidence being used against him is false.
The whole reason "persecution" is the main talking point is exactly because there is no legitimate defense. There's not even an illegitimate defense that they can float to the base, so the only thing left is "witch hunt".
Agreed. If there’s evidence you did something, there’s only yourself to blame. I don’t care if it’s Trump, Hunter, the Sacklers, whoever. Own up to what you did. And if you’re ok with someone hurting people or try to cover it up, you aren’t really any better
I'm not on his side. but selective application of the law is still abusive. just looking at the veracity of the evidence to assess fairness is disingenuous.
theguardian.com
Hot