I respect that sentiment, but if that happens, his stupid conspiracy believing gun-nut militia joining followers would probably engage in multiple mass shootings nationwide. It's appalling how lax red state gun laws are.
As it is, when he goes to jail, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a handful of shootings anyway.
Even if he doesn’t go to jail they’ll probably celebrate him being found innocent with mass shootings, similar to sports fans that trash their city after the team they like wins.
Let them go crazy and shoot some shit. Let them show their true colors. The national guard has armories in every state and troops ready to respond. Let them fuck around and find out.
Hush Money case for Stormy Daniel’s, a former Playboy model, and a 3rd woman
34 felony counts - Falsifying business records in the first degree
Classified Documents Case
32 felony counts of willful retention of national defense information in violation of the Espionage Act
6 felony counts of obstruction-related crimes
2 felony counts of false statements to the FBI
1 felony count attempted destruction of evidence
Attempted Coup (January 6th)
1 count conspiracy to defraud the United States "by using dishonesty, fraud and deceit to obstruct the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election"
1 count conspiracy to impede the Jan. 6 congressional proceeding
1 count conspiracy against the right to vote and to have that vote counted
1 count obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct and impede, the certification of the electoral vote
Thank you for listing out all of Trump’s charges from the indictments.
Here is a refresher about the recent indictment and charges related to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the January 6th insurrection.
Trump pushed the big lie that the election was stolen. Trump lost in the courts^[1] including the Supreme Court.^[2] Then he tried to pressure state officials.^[3] He tried to pressure Pence.^[4]
So what does Trump do after exhausting all nonviolent methods of overturning the election? Trump turns to his supporters and lights them up making inflammatory statements such as;
We are going to fight for the survival of the nation.
Now is not the time to retreat, its to fight harder.
We will never give in, never back down, never surrender.
We will fight like hell.
You have to get your people to fight.
Trump primed them for weeks.
State officials had started getting death threats weeks before the attempted insurrection following the general election.^[5] Trump saw first hand what violence was being created as his supporters rioted and vandalized black churches in Washington back in December.^[6]
Trump didn’t stop his incitement after the initial violence, he got more specific. He told his supporters how, when, and where. He gave them 18 days notice inviting them to the rally telling them to be there, that it will be wild.^[7] And on the day of the insurrection Trump told his supporters to march on the Capitol and fight like hell.
Following the riot Trump continued to promote the big lie that had incited the insurrection. After the mob was dispersed, Trump praised and sympathized with the mob in a video he released, claiming once again that the election had been stolen.^[8] Then he praised the insurrection in a tweet after the mob had been dispersed. He told his mob to remember Jan. 6 forever. He said that he loved the insurrectionists and that the violent mob were special people.
I am afraid that Jan. 6 will be seen as a mere skirmish before their real battle against democracy. I hope that wherever Trump will be taken for court and prison will be sufficiently safeguarded from the mind-washed lunatics.
…audio from Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, surfaced from October 31st, 2020, just a few days before the Presidential election.
Let’s listen. [Begin Videotape]
STEVE BANNON: And what Trump’s going to do is declare victory, right? He’s going to declare victory, but that doesn’t mean he’s a winner. He’s just gonna say he’s a winner. The Democrats — more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail. And so they’re going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump’s going to take advantage — that’s our strategy.
He’s gonna declare himself a winner. So when you wake up Wednesday morning, it’s going to be a firestorm. Also — also if Trump is — if Trump is losing by 10 or 11:00 at night, it’s going to be even crazier. Because he’s gonna sit right there and say they stole it. If Biden’s wining, Trump is going to do some crazy shit.
I want to print this 1000 times, wrap it in a plastic binder cover letter so I can use it to smack people upside the head with it every time they utter the phrase “bOtH sIdEs”!
In a phone call, Trump tried to pressure officials in Georgia into making tens thousands of votes disappear to try and steal the 2020 election. They found no illegal votes, refused to overturn the results and began receiving death threats from Trump’s supporters.^[1]
After Trump had exhausted all legal forms of overturning the election; From having over 60 frivolous lawsuits thrown out from all levels of courts including the conservative leaning Supreme Court (Trump picked 3 justices out of 9), and after his Attorney General Barr resigned (an individual that covered/stalled investigations for Trump), Trump turned to his stalwart supporter in Vice-President Pence. A lie was pushed that Mike Pence could refuse to certify the election results as he presided over the counting of the ballots of the electoral college during the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. Pence refused this illegal power grab. Having no further recourse Trump incited an insurrection during a rally Trump held at the same time the E.C. ballots were being certified. Trump’s supporters erected a gallows, stormed the capital where several people subsequently lost their lives including police officers. Politicians were incredibly lucky they escaped. For example Capitol Police Officer Goodman’s quick and heroic decision to lead an angry mob away from where congression members were hiding probably saved many lives. This mob was chanting hang Mike Pence, many of whom wore tactical gear, carried zip ties, and used flagpoles, fire extinguishers, and chemical sprays as weapons while attacking police officers that protected Congress.^[2]
Back on Reddit, most of my saved comments were from you, PoppinKREAM. Glad to see your detailed (and well sourced!) explanations are here on the lemmyverse now too.
So good to see you here, PoppinKREAM, after the reddit debacle. It gives me hope for the kind of informed, careful, and comprehensive analysis on Lemmy which is, after all, your calling card.
Though there’s no way to really prove it unless you know some personal things about me that I can prove. But I tried to stay somewhat anonymous other than being a Canadian anthropologist who works in athletics lol
As per @doc suggestion, I have edited a comment on reddit I made a few weeks ago to include my Lemmy handle.
Even if it wasn’t you, someone copying your well-sourced comments would be welcome but I’m also super happy that you could validate using your reddit source content.
I do believe it is you, hiya! I’m being perverse as a matter of policy.
I try not to get too invested in identities anyway. I look at the user if I need the context to evaluate their frame - but usually, you know when you’re reading insightful commentary.
At this point it seems like nothing will ever happen to him, ever. He seems likely to remain free to commit more crimes, whine endlessly, swindle money from idiots and further harm the country.
you gotta hand it to him. It is impressive to collect so many charges and still be out of jail.
Is it a quality that recommends him for president, or any position of power as menial as being the guard of a parking lot? God beware no! Get him away from any power, any money and anything where he could harm people, because he will do that for sure!
It’s wild that there are so many charges, and in such a short timeframe. It feels like just yesterday that we weren’t sure if he’d ever be charged with anything…
When I heard that this was the 3rd indictment, I found myself thinking, “Ok, there’s the Mar-A-Lago case, but what was the first one? Ah…”
In the future there will be entire college courses dedicated solely to the Trump era.
It’s wild that there are so many charges, and in such a short timeframe. It feels like just yesterday that we weren’t sure if he’d ever be charged with anything…
Investigating, assembling all the evidence, putting together the case is a very involved and time consuming process.
Especially if you want to get every single little detail correct in order to make the case as bulletproof as possible.
They’ve been trying ever since the Bush years to deny reality. Ever since WMDs they’ve been sore that reality has a liberal bias, and have been stubbornly hanging on, in the hopes that once they get past this one scandal then Republican values will win out, just you wait.
It depends which segment you mean. At the core, the party is run by idealogues, and pirates. The idealogues really believe in looney religious shit (as in, "jesus is coming!" or "demons"), or insane economic theories. The pirates don't give a fuck about ideas or religion at all - they just want to steal money from the government and through rigging the economy.
My comment applies to Republicans broadly as a whole. Regardless of their motivations, they all find reality inconvenient and when their policies failed (WMDs in Iraq War, 2008 financial meltdown), they tried to blame others rather than admit their policy was the major cause.
I mean if I wanted my guy to win no matter what and didn’t care about democracy I’d probably go for the dude who has a friggin cult following and sells boatloads of merch who has already attempted to change the results of multiple elections by any means possible, because if they win there’s a chance they’ll never have to worry about winning again
that seems rather unlikely, even if it should prove something humans are fatally unsuited to (which Im not really convinced of yet, because a lot of the problems of the information age are not really new, there is plenty of precedent for leaders that make foolish decisions to nevertheless inspire large followings and use that to break political norms in the system they exist in for example, or for harmful rumors and movements to spread false medical advice or hate towards particular groups of people, before the information age). In order for something to be the great filter, it implies that that thing has to be the death of (or at least permanently halt the advancement of) close to every species that reaches it. In other words, it isnt enough for humans to struggle with it, it has to be something for which a species evolving that can survive it is essentially inconceivable. Given how different the psychology among even different animals on earth can appear to be, and that the problems caused by the information age will be greatly impacted by the psychological quirks of the civilization experiencing it, that strikes me as unlikely. It also has to actually drive the species that reaches it to extinction, or at least completely stop their advancement. Given that new technology continues to be developed, some of it surprisingly quickly and a lot of it helped by the fruits of the information age, the latter seems unlikely, so for it to be the great filter, it would need to actually cause extinction basically 100% of the time, and even for humans, Im not sure how it would do that (while enabling things like climate change denial and anti-vaccine movements to spread causes us problems, that probably isnt enough per se, even a disaster that made three quarters of the planet literally deadly to exist in and a plague that wiped out half the population would be insufficient to make something a great filter, for example, if that species survives in what marginally livable area remains to rebuild their numbers and continue to advance their civilization. It has to kill everyone with no chance for any group to find any means to survive it)
Yeah, sorry, I tend to have a habit of putting lots of text behind parenthesis, and using run on sentences. I’m not terribly great at writing and when I try to condense things down I always feel like the results make less sense to me or are missing small bits of what I meant to say.
What a crazy irony. Here we were thinking we had to survive the nuclear age and get to the point where we were all connected and well-informed. But it turns out the nukes led to an unprecedented period of peace and global information access and communication may destroy us all.
I think it’s pretty unreal that everything that has happened in the wake of the 2020 election and January 6th and Roe and so much more has apparently only cemented people in their partisanship. Absolutely wild.
My theory is that many westerners in our current era have effectively replaced traditional religion with shallow political ideology.
So instead of going to church so they can be surrounded by fellow believers and hear a sermon telling them that their faith is the one true way and that every evil is rightly blamed on the loathsome unbelievers and heretics, they go online so they can be surrounded by fellow believers and hear a sermon telling them that their faith is the one true way and that every evil is rightly blamed on the loathsome unbelievers and heretics.
I believe this too and I don’t even think it’s controversial, I think it’s fairly mainstream tbh.
Look at that stupid conservative congresswoman who got up in front of a bunch of conservatives at a “prayer breakfast” and said, totally casually, she only made it on time because she turned her boyfriend’s request for a quickie down.
These people aren’t religious, they don’t even know what it means to be religious.
My theory is that many westerners in our current era have effectively replaced traditional religion with shallow political ideology.
I don’t really think traditional religion has been replaced by political ideology per se. But I do think religion in the US has formed a symbiotic relationship with politics.
If you go to an evangelical church service in many areas, it is pretty much nothing but a Republican political meeting. In some churches, you’re not even welcome if you’re a Democrat.
Yes - some number of people have melded religion and politics. There's nothing new in that.
But I'm talking about a different dynamic.
Religion is only in part, and arguably not even primarily,about deities and creation myths and such. To some significant degree, and arguably primarily, it's about establishing and maintaining a sense of identity and community, and providing self-affirmation. People adopt and practice religion in large part so that they can self-apply a label that represents a particular set of values and virtues that they wish to project, and so that they can surround themselves with, and gain positive feedback from, like-minded fellow believers.
To that end, each religion has a set of values and virtues that are presumed to be possessed by whoever wears their label, a designated community of believers, a set of beliefs to reassure the believers that theirs is the one true faith, and a designated set of enemies upon whom to blame all wrong and toward whom to direct their hatred, reinforcing both their sense of virtue and their sense of community.
And those things are the things for which a growing number of people in the west are turning to politicsl ideology. They've just filled all the gaps that would otherwise have been filled by traditional religion with secular counterparts. They still have a faith which they share with fellow believers, they still have a label they can wear to designate their faith, they still have tracts and preachers and their sermons, which are still alternately about the inherent correctness of their own faith and the evil of the heretics and unbelievers, they still have a set of morals by which they can maybe attempt to live their own lives, but much more importantly, against which they can judge others, and so on.
It's really all of the same sorts of things serving the same purposes - it's just different insofar as it's centered on politics instead of religion.
I don't think it's even particularly notable except insofar as so many seem to be completely unaware of it. In fact, I would say that that broad dynamic of seeking identity and community and self-affirmation by investing oneself in some specific belief system and joining with others who share those beliefs and thus that identity is one of the most common and basic human traits. For some reason, it's come to be associated (and often disparagingly) with traditional religion, but people actually do the same thing with any number of different ideas or credos.
And currently, and particularly in the west and particularly online, a significant number of people do it with politics.
Seems like past a certain point people will just keep doubling down because turning back would be admitting that you’ve been a fool.
What is crazy about American politics is that “one side” is not just wrong or misguided, but very wrong, demonstrably so. So very wrong that it is insane from an outsider pespective to try to imagine by what wild loops of logic you could end up so very wrong considering that we’re all supposed to be watching the same movie. You can point at basically anything, on any issue at random, and try to reverse engineer the Republican stance on an issue, and you will face absolutely paper thin, weak arguments, weak premises, unverifiable claims every time, about everything, and in a very unmistakable way that the line of reasoning is, again, not just a bit wrong, but very wrong.
I knew a lot of people weren’t very good at that abstract thinking stuff, making deliberate assumptions and at identifying signal from noise, but frankly, I did not expect almost half of the human race to be absolute morons when it comes to critical thinking. Good luck everyone.
Same, the world just seems to be getting more “confusing” and “hectic”, not sure if it’s just that as we get older and more “aware” we start to notice the things that don’t seem to make sense around us.
I try to think each generation before me had the same feeling, like the world is getting smaller and faster. And everyone is just trying to get by without regard for the people around them or future generations.
Yup. Before the Trump cult, I never truly understood how Hitler could have come to power. Now I totally get it.
Trump’s followers have stayed loyal to him through every deplorable moment: the pussy grabbing, mocking the disabled, the Muslim ban, kidnapping children at the border, collusion with Russia, extorting Ukraine, hush money to a porn star, stealing from charity, lying about an election, staging an insurrection, stealing classified documents, civil liability for rape … Not to mention lying about covid, and botching the covid response and killing hundreds of thousands who could have lived, all while utterly destroying the economy.
The fact that there are over 30,000, yes you read that number right, lies over his four years of presidency that are provably false, and yet people still believe anything he says boggles my mind.
See, the conservatives are absolutely right, Trump is being treated unfairly! If you or I had done that we would have been laying bloody on a cell floor after “tripping” and “falling” several times the very same day it happened. The fact that he gets to live in a mansion in palm beach until proven guilty proves without a doubt that he isn’t being treated the same way as the rest of us, which would be fair.
Well thats how privilege woks in the US, if you got the money and the right color skin you can avoid charges for literally any crime for an indefinite period. Even these upcoming trials, Im pretty sure trump will be able to push them back and avoid them till 5 or more years go by, then he'll be way to old to put into jail or some insane right wing president will pardon him for all of it, or some insane fake judge that he appointed will drop all the charges... etc, etc, etc
I still doubt he will ever do any real jail time for all these crimes. If he does it will be a miracle.
What the hell is wrong with republicans? Don’t pay your taxes and you should be killed. Rape a 12 year old and you get to be a daddy. This is messed up.
I am European. I seriously can’t understand why USA conservatives (referring strictly to republicans in this case) are so extremely regressive to the point of hurting themself.
I feel like much of their talk is influencing bad ideas here too.
Because they think it makes them look “tough” in front of other like-minded idiots. Thats the thing they care most about. Not compassion, or equality, or anything like actual fairness…just trying to look “tough”.
Reminds me of the ones who cheerfully discuss details of savage beatings they received as children. Might be real, imagined or embellished but it sets them up to label people they dislike as “soft” if no other insult is readily available.
It’s propaganda meant to put the stooges for the ultra wealthy in power so I wouldn’t be surprised to see it elsewhere in the world. They have NO policies other than “cut expenditures for the wealthy” (taxes, regulations, etc) so they have to use propaganda outlets to foment a culture war that they can then “fight for you” to get your vote.
I do have hard feelings for those that succumb to the propaganda as they have to want some of these hateful things, but I REALLY LOATHE the propagandists. There is no word in the English language that properly conveys just how much hatred I have for them, people like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson. I don’t like to wish death on anyone, but god would the world be a better place without them and people like them.
Hey, don’t worry, european conservatives in the east are already like that, and in the west they will become like this over the next 5-10 years. It’s inevitable, conservatism is a regressive ideology and they just can’t do anything but move further to the right.
Well, until everything explodes into war or rebellion.
Seasoned the conspiracy thinking associated with their particular brand.
When you think there’s a conspiracy of scientists to hide the real age of the earth, it’s not a far drive to “vaccines are weapons of the antichrist” and “Satan runs the Democratic party” and “climate change is a lie to take your way of life from you.”
Notably these conspiracy theories are pushed by parties who benefit from their spread. Furthermore, any evidence against the conspiracy is twisted into proof that the conspirators are even more clever than previously thought.
It begs the question - were they always thinking this stuff and now feel entitled to say it out loud? Or are they being coaxed by propaganda generated by some of our nations enemies in order to break apart our country? Is this all one big state-sponsored psy-ops attack by a foreign country?
I don't know. But it sure as hell scares the hell out of me.
Yeah, I agree with kobra. It’s a mix. The Alt Right Playbook video series gives some interesting thoughts on the matter. Conservatives and further right tend to be hyper hierarchical and tend to demand respect for the chain of authority, even to their own detriment (as long as it hurts someone else more). Rejecting an authority figure is a bigger deal on the right than the left due to the whole “control how people think” angle.
So it hasn’t gone far enough to alienate the ones that are still on board. Some refuse to hear the negative and just bury their head in the sand. Some are convinced by emotionally charged rhetoric that “the other side is even worse.” And some already agreed with them secretly. For most, it’s probably a mix of these various techniques for contorting to fit the shape demanded of them by their authority figures–some being more bigoted than others after all. For the pro-hierarchical people, their place in the hierarchy is a piece of their self-identity and it’s really hard to fight that instinct.
The genuinely treat the constitution as a religious document akin to the Bible. The writer have thought of everything and made room for everything. Btw slaves were totally cool cause they were loved by their owners. This is what I gather from hearing my family speak
Because they found out that if there is a large unhappy with their life, it’s a lot easier to sell them a lie that promises a “solution” to their every problem. Same thing is happening in Europe, just a bit delayed.
It’s not all that different from some far-right political parties in European countries. Vox in Spain, for example, has nostalgia for the Franco regime and would just love to nullify people’s divorces. I mean, talk about extremely regressive. How about Italy’s extreme right-wing party? They successfully nullified some adoptions. Those are two examples I know from Europe, but I think there are other European countries with extremist political parties that are gaining traction.
I am European. I seriously can’t understand why USA conservatives (referring strictly to republicans in this case) are so extremely regressive to the point of hurting themself.
Because Trump ushered in an era where the only “strong” Republican is one willing to hurt “Others”. One who never apologizes when they’re wrong, but instead doubles down. One who is willing to step on whoever it takes to get to the top, especially if the people being stepped on are “them”.
The entire party is all Trump all the time, and the only way to survive in today’s GOP is to either (a) Be Trump, or (b) be willing to openly ratchet up the cruelty. And while I disagree with people like Liz Cheney on just about every policy issue in existence, she at least tried to bring the GOP back to what it was before Trump, and look what happened to her and others who tried to do the same thing.
These Republicans are so regressive to the point of self-sabotage because the MAGA base is still large enough to dictate their political careers and they’ll accept nothing less. MAGA may only be a portion of the GOP voting base, but that portion is large enough where it’s nearly impossible for a Republican to win without them.
Divide and conquer mentality. They have no real policies other than to cut and deregulate. In order to achieve these goals, they need to be in power. No one in their right mind would vote for people who want to do these things, so they misrepresent their ideological alignment by creating strawmen out of minorities, immigrants, and unborn fetuses in order to drum up emotional support amongst reactionary idiots (hardcore religious nutjobs) and racists. Then they double down on the rhetoric by calling Democrats pedophiles, and you basically have a guaranteed voting bloc.
Is that a textualist or originalist interpretation of the constitution?
In other words…
Are the Supreme Priests going to go by the strict definition of the words or the way they feel the founding fathers intended the words? Ahh who am I kidding?? They are just playing…
“Who’s line is it anyway?: Supreme Edition
The court where everything’s made up and the constitution don’t matter”
The title is mainly clickbait. The bonds they're talking about were sold in 1938 by the US backed Republic of China, which at the time was fighting a civil war with the Peoples Republic of China (Maoists). The RoC lost, and retreated to Taiwan. The PRoC then assumed control of the country, and decided that it wasn't interested in paying the debts of the government it had just vanquished.
However, under international law, when the PRoC took over China, they also assumed responsibility for paying those bond holders. Nobody has gotten them to pay up except the UK when the transfer of Hong Kong was up for consideration.
So basically, this is a 70 year old debt that was taken out against China's former government, and the current government really has no urgency to address it.
As @mazelado pointed out, this is an opinion piece by the Heritage Foundation, so the motivations in writing it are suspect, especially as it's specifically pushing the Biden administration to fight this very old fight. You would have thought that if had really been a pressing matter, Trump would have handled it when he started the US / China tradewar right before COVID, as it was clear Don didn't have any qualms pushing potentially destructive diplomatic policies that were unpopular to the Chinese.
You would have thought that if had really been a pressing matter, Trump would have handled it when he started the US / China tradewar right before COVID, as it was clear Don didn’t have any qualms pushing potentially destructive diplomatic policies that were unpopular to the Chinese.
This is a fantastic point. The article sounded correct when I read it, but it felt very obviously biased as well. Your comment here helps me square everything.
Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri has openly acknowledged that the GOP strategy is to make it so miserable for Democrats in red and purple states that they will move to blue states. That would, in turn, cement Republican power in the White House, Senate and thereby the Supreme Court.
I'd say it's a valid strategy, abhorrent though. Because of the rural bias in GOP there will naturally be more counties, states etc that run gop if Dems move to denser blue areas.
More importantly, pushes everything closer to the tipping point where Republicans can pull off Constitutional amendments without meaningful opposition. I see no reason to expect there won't be a significant push towards cementing Christofascism Constitutionally at that point, given the way the party is currently angled.
Yeah, but the strategy’s multi-pronged, so even if you stay and suffer for your suffrage, they can find new reasons to prevent you from voting/discount your ballot. And then you’ve put your life and happiness in jeopardy for nothing. Not a great recruitment pitch for the Stay Put Brigade.
Right? I’m also in Texas because Uncle Sam sent me there. The moment my contract is up, I’m fucking OUT of here.
Wish I hadn’t changed my state of record to be Texas, but that just means I’ll keep voting there until I can bounce. Right now I’m mad favoring Allred to unseat Cruz in 2024.
Me too. I’m a clinical social worker here, and so many of my LGBTQ+ patients have been struggling with suicidal ideation with the politics here, especially with the most recent legislative session. I’m gonna stay here as long as possible and vote in every fucking election possible. Lately I’ve even been voting in the Republican primaries against the extremist candidates. It’s so sad, because it wasn’t this bad here when I was growing up in the 90s. We even had a Dem governor.
How “Christian” of him, eh? It’s disgusting. We are human souls who deserve safety and to not live in fear. I have hope that many Gen Z Texans feel disgusted as well, won’t move, and can turn Texas blue. Once more and more are able to vote, we can transform this state. Maybe that is too idealistic, but it keeps me sane while I am unable to move.
And you don’t even have to be poor. We live in Indiana. Our house is worth far less than any blue state houses. We couldn’t afford to buy a house in a blue state. I hate it here, but I’m here to stay until the housing market collapses.
Or just be willing to hustle? Being young helps too.
I got the job before heading to SF. But another friend of mine in tech sold everything he owned in Ohio, and rented a room in a house for like 800/month and lived with 4 other dudes in a huge house in the inner Richmond. Got by on app hustles until he found a gig coding.
He’s back in Ohio now bc he decided to breed and be closer to family because of it. But he had a solid couple of years more in SF than I did. I kind of regret not just going for it sooner like he did.
This argument needs to die. The EC is never going away, so stop pinning various strategies and hopes on it somehow magically disappearing. If people spent 1/2 as much time on actually voting and campaigning for center and left candidates as they do complaining about the EC, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.
I have worked on campaigns and studied politics for years. With the EC, the current SCOTUS, and the voter suppression and gerrymandering tactics of the last few decades , there is no reasonable long-term path to left, or even center, power. People are allowed to complain. People have been organizing, for years. Nothing has worked, and basic human rights are now being violated in ways and for groups that they hadn’t been before. You’re right that with our current governmental structure, the EC isn’t going anywhere. But democracy’s not about elections alone; it’s about the consent of the governed. A whole lot of us don’t consent, and I don’t think the current institutional infrastructure’s going to survive the blast when that pressure gets too high. And if anything (other than a Constitutional Convention based on the same principles as the EC) happens to the current arrangement, the EC goes too. No one in an underrepresented state would willingly accept those conditions.
HALF the population can’t be bothered to vote in most elections. The country is being dragged to the Right and has been for years now and election after election a massive percent of the population doesn’t seem it is worth going out to the polls. In presidential elections it is higher, but still - there are a LOT and I mean a LOT of elections that could have swung the other way if only a few hundred more people got off their butts and voted. We could have gotten rid of that blowhard Lauren Boebart (however it is spelled) last cycle. She won by only a few hundred votes in an election where less than 60% of the population of that district voted. Apparently Colorado is a mail-in state, so these people didn’t even have to go drive anywhere.
The situation is even worse if you look at demographics. No one had more to lose than the youth of this country and their voting numbers are pitiful. What’s worse is that they have the numbers to change elections. They are a massive group that at this point in time have more people than the dreaded Boomers. Yet their numbers are abysmal.
So when I hear about people complaining about the EC or gerrymandering or a host of other roadblocked set up by the Right for them to get their way on election day, I just think back that these are mostly just excuses. I am not saying that gerrymandering isn’t real - it absolutely is - but even some of the most gerrymandered districts could swing the other way if enough people voted.
If you’re overwhelmed by the enormity of the threat the right poses, and you see structural change is impossible, I sympathize. But blaming people who are struggling for not doing something they see as unlikely to produce positive change and that the state is simultaneously actively making it hard for them to do isn’t helpful. I’ve been politically involved since 2000 (academic study, campaign volunteering/work); Barring major disaster, I’m not seeing voter numbers going up from here significantly without legistative changes. You can yell at clouds all you want, but that’s not the point of leverage you’re looking for.
Making everyone a victim who is on some pre-determined path and they have no control over the things that happen to them is exactly the nonsense that I see the youth are falling for. I see posts by Zoomers all the time that essentially boil down to “we’re screwed, so fuck it” or “I give up” or some such. That’s not the America that I grew up in and I refuse to buy into this idea that change is impossible. Americans need “tough love” - coddling them in this idea of “IF ONLY so-and-so was different” then we could fix the environment/housing crisis/healthcare. Be the change you want to be. Expecting that it will simply be handled to you leads to this apathy and tuning-out that far too many Americans already fall into.
I don’t think you understand. No one in my position thinks things will he handed to/handled for us. (Your word choice is unclear.). I think we’re on the Titanic and we’ve struck the iceberg, we just haven’t done the horrible dying in the North Atlantic part. And if I wanted boomers who’ve probably studied our political structure less closely, spent less time doing actual campaign work, and seen less of the way things work than I have, telling me I’m entitled, I’d have asked one of those guys who likes talking about millennials like we’re children whose biggest problem is not laying off the avocado toast. “Kids today are weak, entitled whiners playing the victim card, and I know better because I’m older” may pass for discourse some places, but not here.
Ok. I think people’s actual lives are more important than a 250-year-old document that can’t differentiate between a flint-lock pistol and a machine gun. Don’t you?
Had to scroll too far to find this! I also read that it was totally about strategy in those purple or starting to lean purple states as more young people lean liberal, and the older, evangelical crowd is not being replaced enough with young people to keep a good footing for the Republicans. If the liberal people leave, the states turn solid red, and then they don’t need new people so much to keep power.
Of course no one wants to live in a place that is contrary to their beliefs so you can’t blame anyone for moving somewhere else… but the implications of that are scary for the country as a whole.
I don't really have a problem with the president saying "I don't personally like abortion, but I still stand by a woman's right to choose". I'm a staunch atheist and I would much rather work with that style of Christian than the ones who want to force others to follow their own insane rules.
It's not a huge deal but why preface it though? All you have to say is "Roe vs Wade was the correct decision and a woman has the right to choose"
I'm "big on abortion" because it's a human right and I like human rights. And it doesn't really matter if a cis man is "big on abortion" because these laws will never affect him and his body. He's just trying to appeal to Christians because Christians control so much of this country 🤮
You can't get elected by being honest, really. The optimal president is one who appeals to the most common middle ground with as many people as possible (single issue voters notwithstanding). He's hoping to acknowledge moderate Christians who, having perfectly valid opinions on abortion, disagreed with overturning major Supreme Court decisions on culture war activists. Moderates are the only people who you can move on the ballot, sadly.
And it doesn't really matter if a cis man is "big on abortion" because these laws will never affect him and his body.
I'm pro-choice but I've heard this and many similar things said and it's such a ridiculous thing to say.
"It doesn't really matter what you think about inhumane treatment for XYZ medical condition because you're not a doctor and you don't have that condition"
"It doesn't matter what you think about banning this important subset of knowledge in K-12 education because you've already aged out"
Believe it or not, things can affect you even if they're not directly happening to you. People don't exist in a vacuum.
Disregarding someone's opinion has never once changed someone's opinion.
"Big on abortion" in this situation means "other women can have abortions but I wouldn't choose to"
But he will never be pregnant and never need an abortion, so of course he will never have to choose to have an abortion. The only people whose opinion matters when someone needs an abortion is the pregnant person and their doctor. Plenty of people who were "not big on abortion" ended up getting an abortion when it affected them.
You are allowed to have an opinion sure, but your opinion is irrelevant when it comes down to the decision because it's a healthcare decision. Do you want to have to take every other person's opinion into account whenever you make a medical decision? I highly doubt you would make the same argument if this applied to your medical decisions.
What if I want to take a medical treatment that doctors and I agree will save my life if you personally think it's inhumane? I should just fuck off and not get a choice despite what doctors and I think are in my best interest? I'm on birth control for medical issues and plenty of people think it has too many side effects to be legal, why should they get to decide because they had a bad experience when it has worked for me?
What if I don't have a kid in your school, but show up to a school board meeting with all my friends to say teaching kids math is inhumane and it needs to be removed from the curriculum? People are doing that RIGHT NOW near me, mandating the removal of pride flags and banning the use of kids preferred pronouns. Do they have kids in the school district? No. It's a bunch of people from a mega church near by being told to do this by their pastor. But according to you, they should be respected.
Comparing it to inhumane medical treatments highlight your true feelings on the subject.
"Big on abortion" in this situation means "other women can have abortions but I wouldn't choose to"
He's Catholic. If you can't see that to mean "I see abortion as similar to taking a life" then there's no reason for me to read the rest of your wall of text.
Was thinking the same thing and saw that you had it covered. "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all" seems like the kind of shit his old ass would gripe about. So sick of these "moderate Dems" trying to poach votes from the right. Anyone trying to build long term stability or a cohesive path to progress wouldn't be inviting these fucks into their "big tent."
edited, because I forgot to say: Us pizzas know whats up.
I'm not sure where you live but I'm in the bible belt and almost every single Christian I've heard speak about the issue (people are very vocal about religion here) has said that abortion is murder and they do not approve of women having the ability to choose to end a life for any reason.
As a Christian, I have to say that I don't see any medically unnecessary situation where abortion isn't murder. You are ending the life of another human being for your own convenience.
That said, I realize that as a community we can't get rid of abortion. It's a very complex problem with no good single solution. Not only is it necessary that people have painless access for when it is unfortunately necessary, but it's also not correct for us as Christians to force our convictions on others. All we can do is to try our best to make situations where abortions are desired (but not needed) as infrequent as possible. That means good prenatal care, good familial and financial education, proper sex education (and I mean real sex education, not just "don't have sex" - you can't stop humans from doing human things), etc.
I’m a pastor and I can tell you that modern theology on abortion was largely fabricated in the late 70’s and early 80’s.
Even the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Evangelical denominations called abortion a “distinctly Catholic issue”. The cause for the change of consensus between 1973 and 1977, but the point being the largest pro-life organization in America took years to become outraged. If the Bible were as clear cut as they pretend, then they should have been marching on day 1.
What does the Bible say about abortion? The only time it discusses it is in Numbers 5:11-31, known as the Drought of Bitter Waters. Essentially if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant due to an affair, a priest administers a drink of bitter waters. There’s some debate over whether this drink is legitimately harmful and God supernaturally protects the innocent or it is perfectly harmless and God supernatural punishes the guilty, but it doesn’t really matter as the result is the same: The termination of the pregnancy.
If a fetus is a fully developed human life, then an innocent is being executed for the crimes of another. That’s a pretty horrific conclusion, but that’s obviously not the perspective of the audience of the day.
So how did the Biblical audience view the notion of when life began?
This gets a little tricky as we’re essentially asking when does a person have a soul. For much of the European church history, this moment was called ensoulment and happened when the mother first felt the cold kick. This specific moment was also known as the quickening. Most evangelicals now argue that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception.
The problem is that ensoulment isn’t actually a Christian idea at all, rather it’s Greek and Roman. Unfortunately, a lot of how Christian’s think isn’t due to the Bible but because of a rather interesting fella named Plotinus and his philosophy known as neo-platonism.
Speaking broadly, in neo-platonism, the soul is the true essence of a person and it is immortal and eternal. The soul inhabits a body and lives a life of good or evil that determines its eternal destination, heaven or hell.
In Judaism and therefore Christianity, people don’t have an immortal soul. You will find no verse in the Bible that discusses an eternal spiritual essence. The Bible explicitly notes that we were forbidden the tree of eternal life.
Jews did not believe in going to heaven when you die, they believed in a blessed hope known as the resurrection of the dead. A time when all who died would arise again to face judgment, the righteous would never taste death again and the world would be set to rights.
Even in Jesus’s day, this wasn’t a universally held belief, however. The Pharisees held to the resurrection, while the Sadducees believed that death was final and permanent.
But the words Soul and Spirit occur all throughout the Bible, you may be thinking. Yes, but that’s more an artifact of translation and cultural appropriation. In Hebrew, spirit is “ruach” and can be translated roughly as breath or wind. Soul is “nephesh” and literally means throat.
In Jewish thought, and therefore Christian thought, a person becomes a living being when they breathe.
The real kicker in all this is that the church rejected a lot of Jewish thought and leaned into Greek and Roman thought because of antisemitism.
The best argument for the Southern Baptist Convention’s pivot on this issue? Probably racism as well. Integration in public schools caused a massive surge in private Christian schools, which could segregate under the guise of religious liberty.
While the Supreme Court ultimately decided against Bob Jones University in the early 80’s, it was only after a 13 year battle with the IRS and lower courts. By the late 70’s, it became clear that the final bastion of racial segregation, Christian education, was going to fall.
Racism had been a hugely potent force for turning out evangelicals to vote and with these final court cases, the voting block was no longer motivated or unified. Abortion was one of several issues workshopped by Jerry Falwell and lesser-known, but not less-influential, Paul Weyrich and first floated in the 1978 midterms with tremendous success.
It finally became an issue with national attention in 1980 and the theology of life beginning at conception was largely solidified in place.
All that to say, if you want to believe life begins at conception, that’s fine. But you can’t pretend that’s ever been a commonly held perspective. Throughout much of church history it was the quickening and when the Bible was written, it was almost certainly at first breath.
Interesting, pastor W.A. Criswell, the former president of the southern baptist convention agreed with that notion in 1974. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”
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.
Look, my ONLY goal is to have D’s in leadership because the alternative ushers in a totalitarian fascist hellscape russian client state. If Brandon fucks off to the next life while in office, I don’t care. His replacement won’t be a traitor.
No pretty sure that’s what they’re arguing. Same dumbass argument that leftists made in the Weimar Republic. Let the fascists take over and then we’ll win the next one, and then they all were murdered. Idiots. There’s no weedling around fascism. You fight a head-on with no mercy. You don’t try to work around it, you don’t try to outlast it, you don’t try to use it. You murder it. That’s what they deserve and that’s the only way to fight them.
politics
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.