What could be wrong with camps to just concentrate these folks into a single area? That just makes it easier to implement a final solution once it has been found. We can let them earn gold stars to identify outstanding individuals. I think this would be a great experiment. Can you not see?
Yes sometimes migrants and asylum seekers travel with their children, or they just send their children alone, and so we can’t just detain those families and unaccompanied kids into the same place they put all the adults, right?
Obama didn’t “start this,” it has always been the case.
Were you making this same argument when it came out that Trump was keeping kids in cages? I don’t understand how people are so quick to flip their viewpoints when it’s “their guy” being criticized.
You think that’s what other people do because that’s what you do. I formed my opinions in the real world based on evidence, not based on how I feel minute to minute.
Respectfully, it feels like you have something on your mind and you used my post as a ramp to launch into your spiel. I haven’t been silent. I wasn’t aware when they started. I don’t know enough to speak on that subject. But I became aware when they permanently destroyed families, tracked girls’ menstruation, and overcrowded them with little to no resources. Perhaps they were created with the intent of humane treatment as a temporary measure to address immigration applicants who would otherwise be homeless and vulnerable, but I don’t know that either.
What I can observe is how the camps were used by conservatives and draw parallels to camps used similarly by the Nazis (and while the parallel isn’t quite the same, I acknowledge also by the US against Japanese citizens).
And it’s really weird that you address me like this is the first I’ve spoken out about this. Unless you tie me back to my Reddit history (which I’m certain would be difficult since I changed names) you couldn’t possibly know what I’ve said or not. But for the record I’ve vocally opposed inhumane treatment of immigrants for years.
You’re talking about people who believe to their core that a fancy lad born to real estate wealth who revels in his class privilege to a cartoonish degree, to the point of having a reality show where the central conceit was “kiss my ass for half an hour because I’m so rich,” Represents their interests.
They are willfully, belligerently ignorant in order to protect their false beliefs. They have been trained to reject any and all information inconvenient to the positions of their tribe.
Donald Trump could literally rape a typical Republican’s mother in front of them while laughing about it and flipping them off, and their mind would either pretend it isn’t happening, or declare that Biden is doing it. They’ve fully embodied the Orwellian nightmare:
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
It’s odd to think that I want to spend the time listening to their nonsense to stay informed. I’m starting to get concerned about how much “ignorance is bliss” is becoming a mainstream part of life.
That's the whole point of this doomsaying. It's not being repeated just because some people believe it, though some doubtlessly do - it's being repeated because it's convenient propaganda for fascists.
I agree it's not inevitable; that part is wrong. I like the article nonetheless because of the sense of alarm it carries. A lot of the news about Trump doesn't have nearly enough of that.
I saw an article on the climate yesterday that had some scientist saying in passing "it's time to panic" (like not even the main thrust of the article, it was just his quick reflection on some aspect and then he moved on). I think that kind of sentiment isn't expressed anywhere near often enough for what the situation is in the world today.
Not that I disagree with anything you’re saying, and I don’t want to diminish the urgency, but it’s like we’ve got a global case elevating of alarm fatigue. It’s hard to find anything more or less panicking when the doomsday clock is permanently set to 11:59 p.m.
As a Canadian, the prospect of a Trump dictatorship certainly is chilling.
For the curious, this would be 2900 kilograms in the metric system and about 6400 pounds in the imperial system of 5000 rubel bank notes (the largest denomination). That’s about the weight of midsized car. The calculation is on bills alone and does not include other things like paper currency straps or storage mediums.
The total weight by comparison in USD (100 dollar bills) would be 1480 kilograms in the metric system and about 3260 pounds in the imperial system. Which is roughly the weight of a grand piano.
These polls are just his approval ratings, right (sorry, can’t access the article), not a measure who is willing to vote for him in 2024? Yeah, people don’t approve of you backing Israel when it’s indiscriminately killing civilians and committing war crimes. Surprise, surprise. Doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for Trump over you, Joe, don’t worry.
Im sure Joe has a mountain of people to interpret the numbers.
Truth is, numbers are bad. Just the other day there was an abysmal poll that showed people trust trump more on everything but behaving well and abortion. Not by a thin margin. I don’t know much about it, but It was reported on a reputable left wing network. It’s really not looking good for him and for the Democrats that have no backup plan. The right have succeeded to portray him as a frail senile incompetent man with corruption issues. It’s a failure of the democrat establishment.
Polls vary but this sort of poll typically asks “If there was an election tomorrow…” So no, not an approval rating.
They’re not a prediction of who will win in 2024, they’re a snapshot guesstimate of who would win tomorrow (if the pollster got their methods right, which they don’t, always).
But regardless, you absolutely should not be telling people not to worry. Trump voters will turn out (and predicted turnout is a huge part of pollsters’ methods). If Biden’s voters don’t turn out, he might lose. And it would be for exactly the same reason Clinton lost in 2016: complacency.
Because the US is a two-party system due to first past the post voting. Until the country adopts ranked-choice or single transferable vote, there will only be two parties. A vote against one party is simply a vote for the other party.
So by voting third party you are voting for the Republicans. Congrats on supporting the greater genocide.
Why don’t the democrats support ranked-choice voting, then?
Because they get elected by the current system.
What has Biden done to curtail the genocide of Palestinians?
Helped negotiate a ceasefire that Hamas broke, and has spoken publicly about Israel not doing enough to avoid civilian casualties. Not much I admit, and far from enough, but not nothing.
There is no lesser genocide
The US could send more money and weapons to Israel and publicly support the killing of civilians. So yes, there is a lesser genocide.
People abstaining or not voting democrat in 2016 because they were mad Sanders didn’t get the nomination led to a Trump presidency. It didn’t help make the Dems move more to the left, it didn’t help people get more social services. It just led to a vastly more right wing era that was hostile to minorities, removed many LGBTQ+ protections, ended abortion protections, and enshrined a corrupt supreme court for the next few decades.
But I’m sure you’re so happy to return to such a government to stick it to Joe Biden.
Really? Looked to me like the prisoner exchange was what got a ceasefire. Do you legitimately believe Biden was the cause of it? I don’t, especially considering how little impact he has on everything else happening in the area.
The US could send more money and weapons to Israel and publicly support the killing of civilians. So yes, there is a lesser genocide.
The US is already sending Israel everything it wants and has pledged its support. If you can cite an example of the Biden administration withholding aid to Israel, then you would have a point. All I’ve seen were empty threats.
But I’m sure you’re so happy to return to such a government to stick it to Joe Biden.
I’m happy to do my part in breaking an endless cycle. You’re happy to do your part in perpetuating it. If you have a problem with me, then you need to change to get my support.
Do you legitimately believe Biden was the cause of it?
The US was heavily involved in mediating the talks, and getting the ceasefire extended.
sending Israel everything it wants
Everything the current administration wants. They could absolutely send way more if they wanted to, and the Republicans certainly would.
You’re happy to do your part in perpetuating it.
That would be you, because a Republican government = more gerrymandering, more fascist laws, more restricted voting, a more right wing judicial system, all of which leads to less ability to vote against them.
Congrats on being a Republican puppet, and making the country more right wing authoritarian.
The US was heavily involved in mediating the talks, and getting the ceasefire extended.
Really? How?
Everything the current administration wants. They could absolutely send way more if they wanted to, and the Republicans certainly would.
No, everything Israel wants. Do you have any examples to the contrary?
That would be you, because a Republican government = more gerrymandering, more fascist laws, more restricted voting, a more right wing judicial system, all of which leads to less ability to vote against them.
Maybe once it gets bad enough, people like you will start fighting back instead of rolling over.
To think, we could be talking about a legitimately new president without Trump having ever entered office.
Do you blame the democrats for nominating Hillary Clinton, or the independents who didn’t fall in line? Why isn’t it the responsibility of those who support Hillary/Joe to fall in line if a Progressive wins the nomination?
IIRC they acted as a go between Israel and Qatar to enable talks in the first place, and they threatened reduced support if Israel didn’t agree to a ceasefire. But those articles were from a month ago, and I cannot find them now.
No, everything Israel wants.
Do you honestly think if the US was like here’s $100 billion more Israel would turn it down? The US could send way more money.
people like you will start fighting back instead of rolling over.
Ah yes, let’s allowing a fascist dictator with absolute power to rise in order to potentially start a doomed rebellion because I don’t like something the government is doing. You think 1 million Palestinians potentially being killed is bad, but you’re A-OK with starting a civil war that will result in 10s of millions of deaths? You really have to get your priorities straight.
the independents who didn’t fall in line
Them, I blame them. Sanders would not have won a general election, he is too far left for the vast majority of Americans. But the minority that did support him would have been enough to tip the scales in the Dems favor, allowing the country to avoid the ultra-right wing hell it now finds itself in.
Sanders would not have won a general election, he is too far left for the vast majority of Americans.
That doesn’t make any sense. If independents prefer Sanders and Republicans hate Hillary, then you’re only going to lose voters by alienating independents.
Republicans were never going to vote for her.
I see what the problem is now. You legitimately believe Hillary was a better choice than Bernie against Trump, even though she lost.
I can’t reason with people like you because you refuse to see reason. You will do whatever the establishment tell you to because they’re always right and you just have to go along with it (even when they’re wrong.)
Ah yes, let’s allowing a fascist dictator with absolute power to rise in order to potentially start a doomed rebellion because I don’t like something the government is doing. You think 1 million Palestinians potentially being killed is bad, but you’re A-OK with starting a civil war that will result in 10s of millions of deaths? You really have to get your priorities straight.
Sorry, this paragraph just oozes reddit-brain. I’m gonna let you think on why rational people won’t take such charged comments seriously. I’d be here all fucking night unraveling this bullshit like it’s a Calabi–Yau manifold.
Anyways, I’ve said my piece. You seem like no matter what you’re going to believe you’re correct, so I’ll just let you have the last word and we can be done with it.
Are you going to convince seventy five million people to choose one single other candidate?
And what then? You realize if they did win, they just become the new establishment, right?
What happens when someone like you doesn’t like the way Hawkins handled the mess at the border that Trump left and starts another “shit sandwich, fart taco” fiasco about moving to a 4th party?
The green party got 0.2% of the total vote, man. That’s not enough. That’s not nearly enough. You need over 50.0%, and they were aiming for 5.0%.
Just a reminder, this is what happened in 2016. If you wrapped up all the Green Party and Libertarian Party votes and gave them to Hillary instead in the swing states, she would’ve won. Instead, those third-party voters helped doom us to a lifetime of higher taxes due to the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, the politicization of a deadly disease that is now endemic, a court system with a supermajority that is more interested in stripping away rights rather than granting them, and the very real threat of the discarding of our democracy as we know it.
There’s more to it than that, but both of these men are known quantities, and one is orders of magnitude worse. Any vote not for Biden will be a vote for a massive increase in genocide rather than status quo, which while unfortunate gives us a chance for a tomorrow where that doesn’t happen.
Whoever you vote for as a write it, it will be spelled “Trump” in the end.
I get your frustration, but this is the way our system works. You have to vote for the lesser of two evils, more often than not. I wanted Bernie in 2016, but I still voted for that cunt Hillary, because it was either her or Trump. Unless you’re certain your state will go Blue in 2024, a vote for a third party is functionally a vote for Trump. If you’re in a swing state, your protest will only amount to getting a person you like even less than Biden elected, and you’ll be part of the problems that creates.
My real frustration is having to deal with people like you every time I say I’m doing something independent.
Ahh well. I hope Trump wins just so people like you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. That’s a boon in my eyes because otherwise you’re never going to change.
If you don’t like it, run better candidates. Perhaps a few losses will get that through your heads. Hillary clearly wasn’t enough.
I’m sorry you feel that way. If a certain justice had retired sooner we would’ve been able to replace them during a Democratic presidency instead of the Trump presidency that we got because Hillary lost.
People on Lemmy are so confident in this sentiment, you guys are kidding yourselves so fucking hard. Many many people are not going to vote at all because of the Israel support. Things are clear for you, sure. But the blind assumption that this will have no effect is straight up delusional
Like, how is this the top comment in this thread? Just dismissing the possibility of this actuly having an effect, almost exactly mirrors the sentiment when the DNC snuffed Bernie
My attitude is that if people who don’t want Trump, but also don’t like Biden are stupid enough to either not vote or vote third party, and it causes Trump to get re-elected, we as a nation will deserve whatever happens under Trump, but especially those stupid MFers. You can’t stop people from being utter fucking morons.
The issue isn’t people voting for trump, it’s them not voting.
Because for some people, voting can take hours.
This is intentional because Republicans know depressed turnout is how they win. Unfortunately Dem party leadership just refuses to acknowledge that.
It’s why trump beat Hillary, and can 100% happen again in 2024. The most important job of any candidate is getting votes. And just saying: “What are you going to do, vote Republican instead?” Isn’t going to motivate enough voters to get to the polls.
The party is obsessed with stealing voters from Republicans, because that matches their preconceived notion that the democratic party needs to move to the right and gives them an excuse to do so.
Despite the fact that it’s easier to get a non voter to vote than convince a Republican to start voting D.
The party is obsessed with stealing voters from Republicans
What? Democrats don't need to steal votes. Democrat voters outnumber Republicans but a fairly decent margin. It IS as you say: they just need people to vote. Which is why Democrats generally back voting by mail and early voting that Republicans try to stop.
In that case theree' no need to move right IR appeal to "centrist" voters so the Democratic cannidate can focus on turning out their base by throwing them red meat, right?
I think your confusing me saying what the party has spent decades doing, and me saying it’s a good idea.
Clearly it’s not.
Because even if it gets a few in office, they’re unwilling to actually fix anything because it may piss off the hypothetical former Republicans that never vote D anyways.
A cynic would say party leadership is smart enough to understand this, and it’s all a lie to justify keeping donors happy. Because the party wants those donations and is banking on “what are you going to do, vote Republican?” To get just enough votes to win the election.
In reality it just makes the office cycle between the two parties. And Republicans break as much as they can, and Dems don’t fix it fast enough before Republicans get it back.
Resulting in a slow but consistent destruction of America, which further depresses turnout and keeps the cycle going on a long timeline.
Which could all be fixed by electing progressives willing to try as hard as they can, even if they fail
If we do that, then the wealthy donors stop donating. And current party leadership gets replaced.
That was what givesomefucks was saying. Team Blue does not need any Team Red voters. They need Team Yellow and Team Green and Team No-Colour-Because-They-Stay-Home votes. But they keep reaching out to Team Red voters by shying to the Right in the stupid and hopeless quest to draw some of those voters over to their side, ignoring a much larger slice of people who don’t want our government slipping to the right. Of course, I have my theory – Team Green especially is horrible about staying home if they don’t get EXACTLY what they want. Team Red SEEMS to be the more reliable answer than Team Green, but they’ve already bought the propaganda that we’re all baby-eating, baby-f**king Satan worshippers over here on the Left.
This. Democrats are way better with ideas and policies that help working people, minorities, women, LGBTQ people, non Christians, and the middle class. Republicans only have tax cut for the wealthy and culture war hate.
I wish Biden were more progressive, but he is a good president. And Trump is a criminal who wants to be a dictator.
This. Democrats are way better with ideas and policies that help working people, minorities, women, LGBTQ people, non Christians, and the middle class.
Now if they would get out of their own way and pass some.
Biden has passed a lot of good policy: Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, Respect for Marriage Act, American Rescue Plan, and more. He has also put put fair judges on the bench and one of the supreme court. None of these would have happen under Republican control.
Democrats have blocked good policy as well. BBB and the minimum wage increase spring to mind. Democrats won’t end the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights act. They didn’t end it to codify Roe. They won’t end it to codify Obergefell. They didn’t end it to support rail workers. Biden promised to revisit the public option during his campaign. Hasn’t bothered to try. And this is a pattern of behavior going back decades. Our own caucus killed the public option with no help from Republicans. We had a filibuster-proof majority and we still managed to find enough no votes. Even after the bill went to reconciliation and could have been passed with a simple majority, did we put the public option back? Of course we didn’t. Did we even try to? Nope.
Despite the fact that it’s easier to get a non voter to vote than convince a Republican to start voting D.
Both of those are hard. Which is why Democrats focus on option three: convincing independent voters (who do not consistently vote D or R) to vote D this time.
It’s not just turnout, turnout was much higher in 2020 than 2016 but even with that Trump gained 12M votes between the two. Millions of people who sat out the 2016 election looked at those four years and decided Trump deserved another go. But Biden got nearly 19M more than Hillary did, and more importantly, got those margins in the correct states to make an EC win out of it.
The game isn't "get people to approve of my performance." The game isn't even "get most people to vote for me." The game is "get a marginal victory in a few states, because land matters more than people."
It’s not just turnout, turnout was much higher in 2020 than 2016
This is another area Hillary’s campaign fucked up, despite being very simple if looking at the larger picture.
The population increased like 16 million in that time.
So “turnout” when viewed as a total number makes it look like it constantly gets better. Hillary ignored that and chased beating Obama’s total votes out of pride rather than focusing on the electoral college to win.
So its best to use percentages, and 2016 was the lowest it’s been in 20 years, ironically enough, that was the other Clinton.
In 2020 it was like 2/3s of eligible voters who voted. But it’s a lot easier to motivate people to vote for someone solely because “they’re not a Republican” when the Republican is already in office. Especially when the challenger is telling everyone they’re going to fix all the shit the Republican is breaking.
But four years later after that didn’t happen…
And I don’t know how anyone can’t forsee a decline in turnout.
And just to be safe I’ll say it again:
Republicans only win when turnout is low, so we need to focus on increasing turnout
And poll numbers show Biden most likely won’t be able to match 2020’s numbers. Republicans tho…
Not many voted for trump in 2020 but won’t in 2024.
Let me paint another scenario for you that people seem to be ignoring:
Trump gets absolutely fucked in court. So fucked that he is no longer the Republican candidate. The GOP base will scramble to circle the wagons around someone else, probably Haley or Ramaswamy.
Suddenly, it’s not Biden vs Trump. It’s Biden vs someone who’s not nearly as polarizing and isn’t a geriatric. Biden voters will be the first to tell you that they voted against Trump and don’t have any love for Biden. In fact, a lot of them would prefer anyone else, with the exception of Trump.
I believe Biden can win against Trump, because people fucking hate Trump. I think he loses against nearly anyone else, with the possible exception of De Santis. There is very little love for Biden, and none of the other GOP candidates have nearly the amount of hate from people that Trump does.
Normally I’d agree, but it seems like the only people who are polling less favorably than Biden are literally every other GOP primary candidate. Even beloved local candidates like De Santis are floundering on the national stage. The MAGA schism is too wide for the Republican party to recover from at this point, if you ask me. This was something that started gaining momentum under the Obama administration and can’t be easily stopped or redirected. Without Trump at the vanguard, the Republican party would be in complete disarray. Why else would they continue supporting him while he’s under so many felony indictments?
He did not receive any concessions he previously demanded, such as a change to the military funding bill to address the abortion policy.
“We got all we could get,” he told reporters.
LMFAO. Get fucked, you sniveling little shit. Republicans are nothing but performative, bloviating douchebags. They bring no policy, no goals, no ideals, just aimless, knee-jerk hand-wringing and finger-wagging.
It’s a good piece and I think the analysis is largely accurate. But there’s one thing I think Kagan missed: Trump isn’t the only would-be dictator who could take power. He lists DeSantis and Haley as the closest competitors to Trump within the Republican Party, but he doesn’t point out that even if, by some miracle, one of them becomes the party nominee, they would assume the very same dictatorial powers Trump is threatening to wield. Neither of them is going to defend democracy when offered the reins of tyranny, and both could easily hold power for decades. Trump maybe has a single decade at most.
The problem isn’t simply Trump wanting to be President for Life. The problem is that the path has been cleared for any Republican to assume that role the next time one is elected. Project 2025 won’t work for Trump only. The next time we have a Republican President, expect it to be the last time we have a fair election.
Not to run interference for those shitbags cause most of them are just as evil but I wouldn’t say they all equally threaten democracy. For one I’m not sure their base would allow a woman to be dictator lol even if she won due to institutional fuckery
No, none of the other GOP candidates have anything even remotely like Trump’s grip on the base. Without that none of the above can happen. Trump got where he is through a long series of steps that Kagan details in the piece. There is no world in which some other candidate steps in and immediately plugs into the same kind of power that Trump has amassed as a result of Republican cowardice. Every one of them would have to start over with consolidating power in a party that’s swarming with amoral power-hungry grifters.
Trump isn’t the only would-be dictator who could take power.
honestly I think only trump has what it takes to form the cult of personality necessary to take over. he's got the charisma to entrance 35% the country. DeSantis is more temperamentally fit to be the lieutenant you send in to do massacres than a figurehead leader
some leading members of GOP leadership voicing concerns about setting a precedent of ousting a lawmaker who had not been convicted of a crime.
The thing about ethics rules is that they are more expansive than legal rules. If you are just going to defer to the legal system, why have any ethical rules at all?
There are all sorts of things that are awful, but still legal. If a Representative marched down 5th Avenue in a literal swastika-and-iron-cross nazi parade, I would hope they would be expelled, despite being a legal (though reprehensible) exercise in free speech.
And because that’s how they did it, they find it perfectly normal and natural to say that ANY action against trump whatsoever must be based on made up lies.
I can't quite make it out, maybe y'all can help: "PHOENIX — Two Republicans who lead a rural county in southern Arizona were indicted by a state grand jury this week for allegedly flouting last year’s deadline to formally accept the results of the 2022 midterm election."
Holy shit! Those words under the title actually do something??? I just though it was a weird sentence with funny futuristic punctuation. Anyway, now that I see that those"linked" words ^TM actually go somewhere, time to go back to inferring meaning from just the post title. Did y’all ever find out which party did it?
washingtonpost.com
Hot