Also Democrats: Ve shall round up und eradicate ze undesirables from society!!! Ve shall put zem into ze camps and ve shall enslave them to benefit ze superior class!!!
https://fxtwitter.com/lastreetcare/status/1806869510483476829
BREAKING: Democrats launch a new slogan, "Hans get ze flammenwerfer"
You'll notice that's due to a supreme court ruling, the same supreme court trump managed to stuff last tkme he got power. If the Dems get a workable majority in both houses and the presidency you'll at least have fighting chance that they'll push back on some of this stuff. trump is slavering at the prospect of making it worse, and has been clear that he intends to.
Don't get me wrong, it's a lousy system and a poor set of choices, but one is clearly worse than the other, and they both actually have a recent track record of being president, so you can make an informed choice.
Critically though, this isn't just about the president, but also every other position on the ballot too.
Democrats aren't being forced at gunpoint by the Supreme Court to mass arrest the homeless.
Like...I don't know how I can stress this to you, there is no "pushing back on some of this", even if they wanted to; which they don't.
The Supreme Court is pretty much fucked for the next couple of decades, very vital decades!
Even with a fucking Blue Tsunami (which isn't going to happen) the Democrats cannot legislate us out of this cluster fuck, and frankly seeing Democrats unabashedly take advantage of a massively reactionary and honestly fascistic Supreme Court ruling without a moment's hesitation should really wake you up to whose side they are actually on and who this system truly serves.God, I hate liberals.
Seriously. Just a couple weeks after Trump was 'invoking Hitler's language', liberal politicians were saying "well, his language was deeply uncouth, BUT we do have a problem along our southern border"
They're the same opportunistic shitweasels they've always been.
Yeah, the decision is not "you have to do this now," it's "this option is legal." Dems on the LA City Council are choosing to be as punitive as they legally can be.
You have been fooled by the most transparent good cop bad cop routine going.
Fooled? I think we're looking at this from different angles then, because, as I mentioned, I know this situation sucks, but I also acknowledge that it's not going to change before the election. Given that, what is your optimum move?
Optimum? Nothing that can be discussed in a public forum. Within electoralism? At the very least punish the democrats for allowing a vassal state to commit genocide by withholding support. They'll probably respond to a blowout defeat by getting even more racist but maybe a few will see that we won't vote for 99% Hitler
And in the interim, what happens? Consider that the Republicans support this just as much, if not more than the Dems. Why reward them for that?
Refusing to cooperate with good cop is not a reward for bad cop. They are not opposed to each other. They are on one side that is against us. I say again that you have been fooled the oldest trick in the book.
I understand what you are trying to say, but refusing to cooperate with the 'good cop' absolutely is a reward for the bad cop as they have the same positions, but even more so. More violence in Gaza, more suppression of minorities, more rights stripped away, and a president who's made it clear they wish to be a dictator.
You don't understand shit liberal. There is one fascist party wearing two different colored ties. Both colors of nazi want the immediate extermination of all Palestinians. The limiting factor on the speed of that process is not American tie color it is the heroic resistance of the Palestinian people and their allies. If the blue nazis support for domestic minority rights were anything more than kayfabe they would recognize the supreme court for the fundamentaly illegitimate institution that it is and break its power with court packing, jurisdiction stripping and impeachments. As in Palestine the limiting factor on the oppression of American minorities is not the insincere handwringing of the soft nazi faction but the on the street resistance of those same minority groups.
Well, if we vote for the democrats anyway, we’re signaling to them that committing genocide won’t cost them votes. That it’s a free thing they can do as they please. Does that not seem like a dangerous precedent to establish? It erodes the very basis of their “lesser evil” to the Republicans. They should actually have to not be evil, and remember that. There has to be some sort of electoral cost to being incredibly psychopathic.
Why reward the democrats for being the best accomplices the republicans could ask for?
Didn’t you say that politicians have to chase votes earlier? To shift their positions to attract voters? Why does that not apply here? Shouldn’t they be courting us by moving away from committing genocide? That would solve the issue cleanly.
Ah, here we go... the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical...
Don't make me tap the sign again:
Show
OK, let's take that as a really simple analogy. You have only two choices in front of you: one city gets destroyed, or two cities get destroyed. Yes, it's the trolley problem all over again. You can obviously choose not to take part, but that increases the risk of both cites being destroyed, you can vote for both to be destroyed, or you can vote to destroy just one. It's a grim choice, with no good outcomes, but one is noticeably less bad than the other.
In reality the second bomb is aimed at things like minority rights, LGBTQ+ communities and even workers in general.
In reality there are myriad options that do not include waving a fucking banner supporting detonating a nuke. The only way you can begin to rationalise your arguement is by creating a hypothetical thought experiment in which there are only two possibilities and you can actually only pick one of them. And even within those completely silly parameters it's still contradictory, with no mechanism to change the hypothetical, hence 'the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical.'
this is democrats taking advantage of the reactionary court ruling. "voting blue no matter who" puts/keeps democrats in power that do shit like this. they do not resist conservatives. they are the conservatives taking advantage of how uncritical the DNC is of conservative politics. when the DNC decided to cram the most ancient and reactionary piece of shit in the party into the oval office, the one who
- was the major booster for the iraq war
- fucked over student borrowers, all the way hard
- spent entire career expanding the police and carceral state
- made sure clarence thomas, the most corrupt judge in history, could elide the anita hill allegations and make it to the unimpeachable high court for life
...that should have been your clue that the democrats are not interested in what voters want and are content to chose a barbaric future of repression and cruelty for the masses. and here we are 4 years later, all social-program promises broken, the economy in meltdown, with two right-wing colonial proxy wars (one internationally recognized as a genocide) in two different regions, multiple coup attempts, and war mongering against china. one is not worse than the other. one is merely different than the other. it is a symbolic distinction without a material difference.
if the democrats had any interest in doing something better, they would not be backing biden and trying to bully everyone into supporting him. the longer the party keeps him in the slot, the more obvious their lack of true concern for a trump victory becomes.
You'll notice that this is a city council run by Democrats.
The dehumanization and abuse of the homeless is a bipartisan position. This is because it is a fundamental product of capitalism, where those most impoverished do not have any humane guaranteed place to live. Compounding this, business owners, through the process of becoming more interested in their own profits than in the well-being of their business' community, treat those who live on the streets near their businesses as merely a threat to their incomes.
Those business owners are who actually control your city councils and your presidencies and your frocked-up supreme court. They also fund the party and PACs and PR firms that are telling you this highly non-strategic advice of "just support this party it's the good guys and very smart". This is an example of why they are in power and you are not - they control your actual political brain.
In reality, you should join us in fighting against the system itself, as it will never deliver what is necessary, and it will actually fight against it instead. This does not mean never engaging in electoral politics, but it does mean actually understanding it and putting energy into that which actually builds our cause and helps our neighbors.
In reality, you should join us in fighting against the system itself, as it will never deliver what is necessary, and it will actually fight against it instead. This does not mean never engaging in electoral politics, but it does mean actually understanding it and putting energy into that which actually builds our cause and helps our neighbors.
Depending on what you mean by 'fighting the system' I think we're saying roughly the same thing. Electoral politics is upon us right now though, and in truth is always there to be dealt with, so needs to be engaged with constantly. Make sure your representative knows your name and what you stand for. From what I can see they mostly don't get that much input from voters, so your voice is louder when you talk directly to them.
The electoral system can be changed, but as you say, it'll take fighting for that. Fighting the system directly won't gain much as it's just that, a system. It'll have to be a 'hearts and minds' job amongst the electorate to show people there is a better way and get them to vote for candidates who support that. It can work, that's ultimately how things have drifted to the right over time, people believe that's the 'better' way.
Depending on what you mean by 'fighting the system' I think we're saying roughly the same thing. Electoral politics is upon us right now though, and in truth is always there to be dealt with, so needs to be engaged with constantly.
I'm saying the exact opposite. Electoral politics is something to spend something like 1% of your political thoughts on unless you are personally running or supporting an electoral anti-capitalist campaign. It is a distraction that gives you the false impression that your lone vote or nagging people to vote for capitalist politicians is doing anything good, let alone worth spending any real time on. If you're spending much of your political focus on this you're just a dancing monkey for the ruling class. This includes local campaigns. If you deviate from this line you'll actually be working against the oppressed and marginalized people around you and in other countries.
Make sure your representative knows your name and what you stand for.
A complete waste of time. You do not matter, politically, as an individual. The other people who have their ear have tens of thousands of dollars to drop on them. You think you're going to compete with that by having the super smartest arguments and "a relationship" with this stooge that knows exactly who butters their bread? At most they will use you as a prop for their own ends. And if they are a capitalist politician, which is nearly all of them, you will be speaking to a brick wall that will never do what is necessary for justice.
From what I can see they mostly don't get that much input from voters, so your voice is louder when you talk directly to them.
Bruh liberals are constantly organizing letter writing campaigns and calling offices and trying to get meetings with their reps. They are routinely ignored. Only organized actions with leverage ever do anything and again, it's only within very limited confines of capitalist discourse.
In contrast, donors get to go to special events at the mansions of party insiders where they get to tell the candidate all about their latest Brown Child Exploder 3000 and how important it is that they don't get in the way of its sales and hey here's $30,000 from all of our executives that just happen to be donating to you as individual private citizens.
You do not register on their radar. You're the goofball they make fun of to their sides later. At most they will use you as practice for how to handle people that want things they will never be provided with.
The electoral system can be changed, but as you say, it'll take fighting for that.
In your mind, what does it mean to change the electoral system and how does it compare to what is necessary to undo the intrinsic violence and disposession of the capitalist system?
Fighting the system directly won't gain much as it's just that, a system.
Why not?
It'll have to be a 'hearts and minds' job amongst the electorate to show people there is a better way and get them to vote for candidates who support that.
You do need to communicate with the public but feeding into the false notion that you're just going to vote out capitalism will lead to almost immediate distrust because you will fail right away.
It can work, that's ultimately how things have drifted to the right over time, people believe that's the 'better' way.
You think people have drifted to the right because they were offered a better future by politicians that had personal relationships with random right wing constituents?
Electoral politics is something to spend something like 1% of your political thoughts on unless you are personally running or supporting an electoral anti-capitalist campaign.
I haven't talked about capitalist politics or trying to change that at all. If you want to change the system that much it's going to be a much longer, harder job. From a change point of view, what I'm talking about are more immediate issues like the voting model in use or the stance the government should take on minority rights. What I was initially talking about, way up at the top of the thread, was simply that trump had stuffed the supreme court and that maybe it would be a good idea to avoid giving him another chance to do that and worse.
Bruh liberals are constantly organizing letter writing campaigns and calling offices and trying to get meetings with their reps. They are routinely ignored.
I talk about making sure your representative knows who you are, and gathering enough other's together to do the same because I have seen it have a positive effect, in the context of what I was talking about. Yes, you're not going to change the fundamentals that way, and a large enough inducement from a 'donor' could turn any candidate, even if they know it'll mean they're out at the next election, but we've seen biden's tone on israel change when he came under pressure, so it does work, even if the changes are initially small.
In your mind, what does it mean to change the electoral system and how does it compare to what is necessary to undo the intrinsic violence and disposession of the capitalist system?
Changing the electoral system from FPTP to some form of more representative system would be a start. If we stick with local representatives then something like the STAR system might give a fairer result and avoid the need to vote for a candidate just to avoid biasing the outcome to another candidate. A proportional system might work and give a fairer, more representative result in many places. I realise these probably aren't the sorts of changes you are referring to though.
Fighting the system directly won’t gain much as it’s just that, a system. Why not?
It's a concept, and idea, not a tangible thing. What is tangible is the implementation of that. Rather than fighting that, changing the system we're implementing would seem like the way to go. I realise though that we are talking about rather different things.
You do need to communicate with the public but feeding into the false notion that you’re just going to vote out capitalism will lead to almost immediate distrust because you will fail right away.
I agree, but I've not said anything about voting out capitalism.
You think people have drifted to the right because they were offered a better future by politicians that had personal relationships with random right wing constituents?
I think people have drifted right because right wing candidates told people that they can make it all better and generally done a better job of "hearts and minds" in certain demographics than left wing candidates have so people start believeing that’s the ‘better’ way.
I haven't talked about capitalist politics or trying to change that at all. If you want to change the system that much it's going to be a much longer, harder job.
I talked about this right from my very first response. It's been described and then assumed that it is necessary to end capitalism to address, in this case, the homelessness is intrinsically produces as well as the horrific, dehumanizing treatment of the homeless it produces. The topic of this thread is the SC allowing local authorities to criminalize homelessness. In contrast to what you have been saying and implying, it is Democrats, including the most "progressive" ones, implementing this in large cities. Anyone that spends any significant amount of time actually doing anything on this issue is fully aware that they will fight you tooth and nail, lie about you, lie about your actions, and do so at the behest of the chamber of commerce, their real primary constituents. And you're not going to resolve the core problems while maintaining capitalism itself. None ever have. This is, in fact, one of the striking differences that many have noted when traveling to various countries run by socialists: they have often eliminated homelessness or have otherwise made major strides despite the economy and geopolitical positions they inherited. The sociopathic generation and treatment of homeless people is a social choice, but one inextricable from capitalism.
From a change point of view, what I'm talking about are more immediate issues like the voting model in use or the stance the government should take on minority rights.
The voting model won't change how capitalism works. The stance the government "should" take is immaterial.
What I was initially talking about, way up at the top of the thread, was simply that trump had stuffed the supreme court and that maybe it would be a good idea to avoid giving him another chance to do that and worse.
Which, as has been noted by multiple people, misses the point that this is actually a bipartisan position. Los Angeles' city council, controlled by Democrats, is among the loudest of anti-homeless voices and policies.
Why have you not acknowledged this obvious contradiction of your logic?
I talk about making sure your representative knows who you are, and gathering enough other's together to do the same because I have seen it have a positive effect, in the context of what I was talking about.
What was the "positive effect"? Let's see what can be accomplished, maybe, through this process. I've spoken with city council members, state legislators, and members of Congress several times.
Yes, you're not going to change the fundamentals that way, and a large enough inducement from a 'donor' could turn any candidate, even if they know it'll mean they're out at the next election, but we've seen biden's tone on israel change when he came under pressure, so it does work, even if the changes are initially small.
Who gives a fuck about "tone" when he provides complete support and funding for the genocide of Palestinians? You are letting yourself become desensitized to the gravity of what is at stake because you choose to let them keep lying to you and playing you.
In reality, Biden has leveraged a PR team to "handle" dissent. Congratulations, you were handled. Such a victory. Meanwhile whole families are slaughtered by the limitless supply of JDAMs and the perpetrators are shielded by your country. You are celebrating your own pacification, having achieved nothing on this. Then you advocate for others to do the same. This is actually counterproductive and I hope nobody ever listens to you in this. Please introspect.
Changing the electoral system from FPTP to some form of more representative system would be a start. [...]
You answered half the question.
It's a concept, and idea, not a tangible thing. What is tangible is the implementation of that. Rather than fighting that, changing the system we're implementing would seem like the way to go. I realise though that we are talking about rather different things.
How is directly fighting the system intangible? Presumably if it is direct, it is focused in an actual thing (the system) and doing something to it. I think you are confusing yourself over your own language.
Have you considered that you might not actually know what other people do re: politics?
I agree, but I've not said anything about voting out capitalism.
But this is what is necessary to achieve the necessary changes re: homeless. I said this right off the bat. If you think capitalism can be maintained while addressing this, I suggest you read a little history and actually get involved locally to see how and why attempts fail. You will, eventually be forced to understand through constant and inevitable failure. Or maybe you won't because despite not actually housing the people in your town you'll get a change in "tone" and call it a day. I hope you rid yourself of that self-insulting logic.
I think people have drifted right because right wing candidates told people that they can make it all better and generally done a better job of "hearts and minds" in certain demographics than left wing candidates have so people start believeing that’s the ‘better’ way.
The second thing is tautological. If you get more votes you must have, by necessity, done better in some demographics. It means nothing in itself.
So the summation of your political theory is that right wing politicians said they can make it all better. And so they won. Really?
If the Dems get a workable majority in both houses and the presidency you'll at least have fighting chance that they'll push back on some of this stuff.
Imagine still believing this
I did say a fighting chance. The thing is, that chance improves if politicians see their voters want it to change and will abandon them if it doesn't. That realization takes time and effort though, and isn't going to happen in a substantive way by November.
Persuade more voters to think like you, organize enough chances for your local representative (regardless of party) to see that change and things might start to change, otherwise you're just screaming into the void.
The thing is, that chance improves if politicians see their voters want it to change and will abandon them if it doesn't
Imagine still believing this
It's the one saving grace of an electoral system. Politicians have to chase votes. If they don't, they don't get elected. Changing voters minds is the hard part, politicians follow along.
this is why the democrats non-stop browbeat and punch left instead of delivering on policy their constituents want
Where and when are enough people coming together to say they want something different? Bear in mind it'll have to be enough people to alter the balance of the next election, making themselves heard regularly.
The whole punching left thing is because they perceive that lots of voters don't want to go further left. If we want that to stop we need them to see that it's actually harming their chances of being elected. As I said, that's going to take a lot of people all saying it and making sure their representatives or hopefuls hear it, loud and clear.
If we want that to stop we need them to see that it's actually harming their chances of being elected.
So you agree, we need to threaten to withhold our vote for Biden, and follow through on the threat if he doesn't change course?
Show
you need to practice silence, do not speak from ignorance. "Where and when are enough people coming together to say they want" through polls and protests it's very clear what people want, and elementary to demonstrate a lack of democrats' fulfillment. democrat voters want abortion legalized federally, they wanted it fucking decades ago, what have the democrats done besides let roe die during their control?
Where and when are enough people coming together to say they want something different?
Well we've tried expressing our disapproval of the genocide on Palestine but the entire country basically called the cops on us. Apparently we have yet to reach a critical mass of people who are against mass murder and ethnic cleaning because the Democrats have made it clear they want a strong Israel, much like how they want there to be a strong Republican party.
First of all, almost every single poll in history, across most of the planet, has had a majority favouring at least some policy that the bourgeois parties can not and will not accept.
Honest question... how do you possibly rationalise this circular logic to yourself that you absolutely have to vote for a particular party no matter what, whilst also saying that political parties have to chase votes and you can make them change their policies by 'showing them' you want something different (but not withdrawing you vote)? You do realise how totally contradictory and incompatible those two things are right?
It's the one saving grace of an electoral system. Politicians have to chase votes. If they don't, they don't get elected. Changing voters minds is the hard part, politicians follow along.
Imagine still believing this
Lol no they don't. Rhetoric chases people's votes, the material outcomes are predetermined by the systems of capital ownership, because the solicitation of donations is still the largest determinate of election outcome (outside of incumbency). Regardless if you win or lose, you have to enact policies that benefit your donors, or potential future donors, and given that we are living in the largest historical wealth gap, the material interests of politicians is to rhetorically chase the populace, but actually enact policies that only benefit the wealthy.
As you have so aptly demonstrated, the absolutely piss-poor political education that people in the U.S. receive insures that we will continue to be taken on the ride again and again.
Also, we don't need to use any thought to reply to you, when you demonstrate so little insight.
solicitation of donations is still the largest determinate of election outcome
Those 'donations' are then used to influence voters to vote for the candidate. Votes are the single largest determinate of the outcome of an election because that's what's counted. Voters opinions are swayed in a lot of different ways, but I doubt, for instance, a far-right thug, no matter how well funded, could earn your vote. If enough voters to affect the outcome of the election have firm enough convictions that a certain thing is wrong and will not vote for a candidate that supports it, then the candidates in that election will not support it. The difficult part is getting enough people to actually make their position known in a way that can't be overlooked.
Again, rhetoric is cheap. But access to spread rhetoric from the media requires money, Money requires you to do things that people with money like, which is at odds with your rhetoric. Rinse and fucking repeat. This isn't hard.
Correct, I will never vote for a far right 'thug' which is why I won't vote for Joe Biden.
they literally don't when all they have to say is "we are better than the other guys" and you morons lap it up and go "next election we will really pressure them for sure"
If there aren't enough people making a noise about what's happening, why would they change? Getting that critical mass is the hard part. Ultimately this system claims to be democratic, so outcomes only changes under sufficient electoral presure.
Politicians have to chase votes
No they fucking don't? You already admited that they will let the republicans do what ever they want and not fight back. Why the hell would they chase votes if you already "have" to vote for them "because there no other choice." What are you going to do? Vote for the republicans? You have no leverage and they own you.
The time to be making them start chasing is at the beginning of their term, not at the end, and there need to be enough people doing it to make a difference to the outcome for it to matter. A few people trying to change the direction of the main political parties is like someone in a kayak trying to redirect an oil tanker. First you need to change the captain's mind, or in this case the electorate's mind. Then you have the numbers to make it infeasible for politicians to ignore you.
when it comes to hexbear users, be nice and thoughtful and give benefit of doubt, when its anybody else that comes in here with some stupid liberal bullshit treat them like shit, fuck them
A pithy response, to be sure, but rather lacking in any noticable thought.
The reality, as it stands, is that, baring any unforseen events, come January one of either Biden or Trump will be the president of the United States of America. This is, to put it mildly, suboptimal, however it is pretty much inescapable at the present time. Assuming you are elegible to vote in the upcoming ekection, any action, or inaction, on your part will have an effect on the totals. Whether that effect actually carries any weight will be down to whether you're in a swing area, which, again, is suboptimal but won't change between now and then.
The time to change these underlying facts is after the election, pushing one, or both, parties to change their policies for the next election, or even the one after. They can't/won't make actual, meaningful changes before November in fear of scaring their base voters, so change is going to be slow, and needs to start at the grassroots level. Persuade enough voters that the change you want is needed and they'll be more inclined to vote for those who support those changes.
A pithy response, to be sure, but rather lacking in any noticable thought.
Reddit brain
The time to change these underlying facts is after the election, pushing one, or both, parties to change their policies for the next election
you are fucking lost if you see this shit and think the answer to this is more electoral bullshit forever
What alternative approach would you personally suggest? Let's rule out abandoning elections or anything of that nature as I really don't think you'd get far with that.
What system/process do you want to see, and how do we get there from here? This is a genuine question, not some sort of gotcha.
Labour, our power has always been our labour.
You need a working class movement that sees the Senate and the Supreme Court for the bullshit it is, but tbh I don't have any faith in that for America because of people like you.You're right, in that labour is the power we bring. How would you go about mobilizing that? How do you propose convincing enough people to agree with you and to pull in the same direction?
If the Dems get a workable majority in both houses and the presidency you'll at least have fighting chance that they'll push back on some of this stuff.
The Supreme Court can undo any legislation in a few years, if not sooner. And the current Court is the culmination of a decades-long right-wing project to exercise exactly that sort of control -- that's the whole reason the Federalist Society was formed, and it's the reason Republicans blocked Obama from appointing anyone to replace
GinsburgScalia. They are actually trying to wield power, Democrats are not.Don't get me wrong, it's a lousy system and a poor set of choices
The Supreme Court is such a bad system that the bare minimum position from Democrats should be "we are going to pack the court with 10 justices to the left of William O. Douglas." There's a whole set of ideas like this that at least match the scale of the problem (an unelected body acting as a super-legislator), but Democrats aren't interested in any serious solutions. Just like they aren't interested in serious solutions for climate change, healthcare, education, foreign policy, or practically anything else.
and it's the reason Republicans blocked Obama from appointing anyone to replace Ginsburg
Scalia
I agree with all of this, in that the Dems seem ineffective in actually getting things done. The issue isn't whether the Dems are a good choice though, they're not. The issue is whether they or the Republicans will do more damage over the next term. From that perspective, the Dems seem like the least bad choice. It's a bad place to be, but only concerted effort from a large enough base, over an extended period, is going to change that. As you say, the Federalist Society worked for decades to get here. It's likely to take effort of a similar magnitude to push it back, unless the Dems get in with a large enough majority at each level that the more sane ones can cause some useful change, and that'll only happen if they're pushed by the electorate.
I absolutely agree with your point. The amount of hero worship that went on was positively alarming and she absolutely should have been persuaded to retire. Unless I'm missing something though, neither the president nor congress can force a judge to retire, short of impeaching them. Even if they could, you'd likely end up in a situation similar to Obama's, where the opposite side blocks your attempts to instate a replacement.
So you're just going to accept Republicans always get their judges and Democrats never get them?
Why don't Democrats block the Republican judges?
There's always going to be some excuse stopping the "good guys". Ask yourself why that is.
Why don’t Democrats block the Republican judges?
Because they're somewhere between idealistic and hopeless at this sort of thing. They want to play 'fair', which is all very noble and all, but means they get hammered by the opposition who have no such scruples. At no point here am I saying the Dems are a good choice, only that the alternative is worse. It's a poor choice, but the one in front of us.
It's the same thing with the Washington Generals, they're playing their hearts out out there on the court but the opposition is both composed of better players and is willing to use every tool at their disposal in order to win.
Idealistic and hopeless is OK as long as not much is at stake. Usually both parties agree on giving ever larger bags of money to the military, continuing to meddle in other nations' business, etc. The unwritten agreement was things would stay the same here, bad but not unbearable, social progress would happen at a slow enough pace to stick, and the white cul-de-sac voters would be able to have their comfy wages / petition bourgeois lifestyles.
That deal is over. Now abortion is gone, LGBT rights under attack, racism against non-whites is growing worse. Even the comfortable white class is starting to feel the effects of high prices, worse weather, a bungled pandemic, etc. Layoffs everywhere. No one who doesn't already own a home can buy one. Employment more precarious than ever thanks to the 1-2 punch of AI and gig jobs.. The treats aren't flowing as freely. This is the time to act!
And of course Democrats, like you said, aren't going to do anything about it. I'm not supporting the party that cannot do the bare minimum to help people. They were always a capitalist party but before Trump at least they did enough to get us gay marriage and other small social consessions. Now we're not even getting that!
I hope they crash and burn so they can learn their lesson. Serve the people or get out of the way of people who will!
OK, I agree with almost everything you've said there, but the last bit 'I hope they crash and burn so they can learn their lesson. Serve the people or get out of the way of people who will!' fails to consider the damage that will occur while they're learning said lesson. You talk about things like LGBT rights being under attack, and abortion being gone, but that is all from the (far)right party, racism also seems to be worst amongst that portion too. Giving the Dems a kicking, though richly deserved, just gives free reign to those who would go further, faster and strip even more rights long before a reformed and recovered Dem party could do anything about it. I think the changes will need to be made 'live', as it were, which will entail them having enough power to curtail the republicans whilst also listening to a large enough group of voters telling them how to change.
I'm going to assume you are arguing in good faith. Around 2016 I would have been in your shoes. I was a Dem and a "true believer". I used to work for the party, literally paid to harass old people to get them to come to a field office to make calls for, 🤮🤢, Hillary.
I used to be you, but then I saw "my" party continue to either cast shitty votes or make excuse after excuse for why they can't ever play hardball like the Republicans do. Thanks to their incompetence or Malice (prob depends on who we're talking about) I looked for alternatives, found the "real" left and now I'm here.
Unless I'm missing something though, neither the president nor congress can force a judge to retire, short of impeaching them.
What does it say about a party if it can't get members on their deathbeds out of positions of power? What does it say about a party if members on their deathbeds don't do this on their own?
A competent party should be preparing younger members to take the reigns, cultivating the mentality that members shouldn't cling to power until they keel over, and should remove members who stick around too long. It should shape the rules of the institutions of government to do this as well.
Democrats never did this, and haven't come close to taking these questions seriously for decades.
Absolutely. I agree with everything you've said there. That doesn't change the fact they can't force a judge to retire. As far as I can see, she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, there was no suitable candidates to take over. It's catastrophic that it came to that, but it's the sort of problem that can only be addressed by enough people standing up and making their voices heard saying that it needs to be addressed. Electoral systems only work when the populous keep watch over them, and keep the participants on the right path.
she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, there was no suitable candidates to take over
Come on, you don't believe this. You're saying there were zero suitable Supreme Court candidates available between Kagan and Jackson? Not retiring was an indefensible decision, simple as that.
You're right that Democrats had failed to address the narrow issue of "what happens if a walking corpse is on the Supreme Court?" before it was too late. But don't they have any politicians in their ranks? You know, the kind that can talk to a fellow Democrat and get them to agree to an obviously good idea? Do you think Obama even tried? What's the media's excuse for not running the stories they're running right now against Biden?
it's the sort of problem that can only be addressed by enough people standing up and making their voices heard saying that it needs to be addressed
This is always good, but there are functional parties in other countries. Parties that show some political leadership and don't have to be browbeaten by a bunch of people risking imprisonment and police beatings to do anything decent.
What you are saying sounds a lot like "Democrats can't fail, they can only be failed."
You’re saying there were zero suitable Supreme Court candidates available between Kagan and Jackson?
I should probably have worded that slightly differently, what I meant was 'she was being obstinate for precisely the reason you outline, she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over'. I doubt she was correct, but I can understand wanting to be sure that your replacement is up to snuff. That she didn't consider her own mortality is, as you say, indefensible. Any reasonable replacement would have been better than what we got.
But don’t they have any politicians in their ranks? You know, the kind that can talk to a fellow Democrat and get them to agree to an obviously good idea?
I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties in their system tend to be worse at acting as a coherent whole and are much more likely to hold differences of opinion and discuss them, sometime quite vigorously, in public, whereas the more right parties tend to fall into line behind their leader and act as a cohesive unit, right up to the point they metaphorically knife them in the back. I prefer the former approach, but it does tend to mean things don't get done.
Parties that show some political leadership and don’t have to be browbeaten by a bunch of people risking imprisonment and police beatings to do anything decent.
I agree, the question is how to get there from here, rather than just wishing for a better situation to start from as so many do.
she felt there was no suitable candidates to take over
Yes, a ridiculous and indefensible position. Imagine the ego to think no one else in the country can do your job (where much of the legwork is done by your clerks, anyway). You really don't have to hand it to her, even a little.
I have noticed that parties that are to the left of the other parties
I don't see how this is responsive to the point that Democrats should have sat down with Ginsburg and tried to convince her to retire. There's no excuse for them not only not doing that, but doing the exact opposite.
the question is how to get there from here
Sure, and the answer starts with coming to terms with the fact that the Democratic Party needs to be replaced, or at least changed so radically that it's unrecognizable. It deserves no loyalty and gets no benefit of the doubt.
Anything short of that approach winds up in the same "oh but they're the lesser evil" excuse, which isn't even true (genocide is not lesser evil), and just leads to the rightward rachet effect we've seen for the last ~50 years.
Bro Biden is going to die in the next four years regardless; he could personally shoot every conservative supreme court justice. He chooses not to. How can you respect that?
Would be the one thing he could do that would potentially restrict the power of the president, too.
Whilst it's an amusing thought, I really don't think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they'll likely be eliminated in short order.
Term limits, age restrictions or even just a robust anti-bribery system would likely achieve similar results.
Considering the Supreme Court basically just legalized bribery, what do you think the odds are that we’re going to get that?
That's why I said 'even just a robust anti-bribery system'. Right now the Republicans seem to be trying to speed-run turning the country into a fascist dictatorship, minimally hampered by the Democrats. The Republicans hold all the power right now, bar the actual president, so it makes sense they can push though their vision of the future.
I've not doubt. It's just the supreme court that have done it so blatantly.
Oh I know, that's why I said 'even just a robust anti-bribery system'. You wouldn't have though it would be too controversial to say that the members of the supreme court shouldn't be on the take, but there you go.
Whilst it's an amusing thought, I really don't think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they'll likely be eliminated in short order.
The US omniparty already murders its political opponents. It murdered sitting politicians, it murdered political candidates, it murders the leaders of political parties, it murders non-electoral political pressure groups, it murders loose-knit groups of single-issue activists, it murders outspoken critics of its policies, it murders union leaders, it murders union members, it murders foreign heads of state, it murders foreign political figures, it murders members of NGOs that counter its interests.
This is the factual, repeated, and continued to this day, history of the United States of America.
And, admittedly depending on what you believe, its possibly murdered a sitting president.
That fair, although I do think that the president marching into the supreme court, armed with his choice of automatic weapon, and just gunning them down might be a little too extreme even for the USA. The Dems like to, at least be seen to, play fair.
Ah yes, retreat to a jokey cartoon straw man instead of addressing the point.
Agreed. But he's not. Even driving a car in shades he just talked about how cool his dad was when he drove a car in shades.
Man, my dad was so good at spraying the supreme court with Tommy Gun fire. That was the generation that knew how to get things done, am I right jack?
I thought the entire concept was jokey, but OK, let me restate my point: Yes, the US government has killed many people, though typically individually and discretely. The president personally shooting multiple supreme court justices as Sickos suggested would be seen to be several levels above that and probably be too extreme for even democrat supporters to stomach. The dems also seem to like to be seen to be playing fair, which suggests they wouldn't even contemplate that approach.
Biden gunning down supreme court justices is of course a jokey image, presented by you.
My point was that the idea that political violence doesn't occur is counter-factual. It is deeply ingrained in the history and present of the United States as a country. Therefore the idea that any sort of armed resistance or defence, or anything else the state regularly demonises as violence such as property damage or sabotage, is a bad idea because it might lead to the start of the state using violence in retaliation is moot. The state already does, even sometimes against itself.
"Bbbbut trump!!"
yes Trump made Biden not fix this by packing the courts
Before you wag some liberalism at me about congress or whatever, packing the courts is explicitly something Biden has said he will not do, so, lol
packing the courts is explicitly something Biden has said he will not do, so, lol
Yeah, he's definitely not playing smart there, although he has said that the next president will likely be able to appoint two new members to the supreme court, which sounds like a hint that he wants to swing the balance. I know he's again expanding the court, which would be the easy short term fix, and that sort of makes sense as it makes it easier for the next guy to do it too, or at least reduces the resistance to it.
If you pack the court, the point is to then ram through laws that strengthen your position so that it’s harder for the other side to feasibly challenge it, to pack the court in the other direction. You can’t change things without exerting power, and the court is a tool of authority. You gotta use and abuse that.
That's fair, but 'harder for the other side to feasibly challenge it' doesn't mean impossible, and so it'll inevitably get pushed back the other way at some point, and then you're the other side in that equation. Yes, the Democrats should be much more willing to exert power when they have it, and much more willing to entrench that power when they can. It seems to be a weakness in most mainstream left wing (left compared to the parties they stand against, not necessarily actual left), they always seem to squabble amongst themselves and refuse the easy wins in front of them.
Well, yes, the opposition might successfully wrest power back, and pack the court back in their direction. But where does that end up? Right to where we are now. There’s nothing lost by trying. The court is already reactionary. We might as well try to change something.
If you're talking about increasing the number on the supreme court, then you get into a crazy level of one-upsmanship. Each president adds more justices until it becomes entirely unmanageable, with dozens of them, all appointed for life, doing their own thing. Replacing justices who haven't upheld the highest standards of behaviour, or have, for instance, blatantly taken bribes, should absolutely happen. Hopefully you put in people who don't fall to those sorts of behaviours, so the opposite party can't easily replace them.
Yes, that's certainly the case, but the Dems do seem to also provide some level of friction to the Republicans cranking the wheel right. The question is whether to remove that friction and give the Republicans more leverage, or to increase it, knowing that it probably wont turn much back, but might stop things getting worse so quickly in the hope that next time around enough (as in an electorally significant number of) people are angry enough that they actually push the Dems for what they want at the beginning of the term, not right at the end.
in the hope that next time around enough (as in an electorally significant number of) people are angry enough that they actually push the Dems
You are demonstrating that you do not understand the most basic point of the analogy.
next time around enough (as in an electorally significant number of) people are angry enough that they actually push the Dems for what they want at the beginning of the term, not right at the end.
This is your thesis throughout this thread so please give examples of when the Democratic party have done inverted their position on a policy they didn't support at the election, on the basis that people lobbied for the change only immediately after the election.
It's not that he's "not playing smart," JUST FUCKING THINK! IF he has an option, and he CHOOSES to not use that option, he MUST SUPPORT the current state of things!
FUCKING
THINK
PAST
THE
PROPAGANDA
It depends on which version of 'pack the courts' you mean. Increasing the numbers just leads to an arms race that achieves little beyond a brief window where the presidents side has more justices, before the next president just increases the number again to swing it their way. Alternatively, telling all the ageing justices of your persuasion to get out while you can replace them with younger people makes more sense, and he and all previous Dem presidents absolutely should have done so, and not doing so is not smart. I'm not sure it's so much them supporting the current state as thinking their opponents will play fair, which is even more colossally stupid.
I hope that at no point have I suggested the Democrats or Biden are a good choice, just that they're a less immediately terrible choice than the Republicans and trump. The Felon has made it clear that he will enthusiastically support and extend all the worst positions the Dems have taken and also want to be a dictator. Neither is a good choice, but one is worse.
They do not think their opponents play fair. They are FULLY AWARE of it. They exist to manufacture consent for right wing policies, suppress leftist populist movements, and provide a pressure relief outlet for popular sentiment.
Maybe my position isn't quite as cynical as yours. I don't think they exists just to do as you say above, rather they are just rather ineffective and bicker publicly far more than their opponents, leading to much the same outcome. Yes, they need to sort themselves out and start acting in the best interests of the country. The only way they'll do that is if they have a clear and consistent message from a large enough proportion of the electorate to make it worth their while. Were it pretty much anyone except trump, I'd say making an example of Biden would make sense, but considering reality I don't think that's wise.
What are you going to do if the next republican just packs the court anyway?They can just do that you know.
They can, and will certainly try. The best way to stop that is to ensure the Republicans don't get that power.
So Biden should pack the courts with justices that will declare an election in Trump's favor invalid?
I suspect that civil war lies that way. Winning the election would probably be a better approach. Neither Biden nor trump have many years left, and I suspect neither will contest the next election. Once trump is no longer running the republican show I think/hope there is a chance that the cult of personality around him will fall apart and they'll be able to drift back towards a sane position over time, which should make things a little safer.
Violence from the right toward the left is already happening. All that's needed for a civil war is shooting back.
The next election WILL NEVER BE BETTER. That is pure wishful thinking.
How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame, but “regrettably necessary” holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
-Hunter S Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72
It has been like this since well before either of us were alive, and it will be this way until climate change kills us all unless we stop believing the grand lie of electoralism and realize that politics happens more than once every four years.
Do they have the numbers to actually push that through? If so, yes that sounds like a good move. Tell your representative to get on it. If enough people do things will start changing.
THEY DON'T NEED NUMBERS! BIDEN IS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE! THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH CHOOSES HOW TO ENFORCE LAWS.
Yes, they could (should) change how they enforce those laws, but that doesn't decriminalize it. He's also bound by the constitution (article 2 section 3) which states 'he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed', which probably leaves him some room for interpretation, but, theoretically at least, he can't just ignore the laws that exist. What's needed is actual decriminalization, which is the purview of the legislative branch, for which they need the numbers in congress.
What happens if he ignores that. Genuinely. What consequence in your opinion does a president face for ignoring that.
At a guess, impeachment. Only, rather than the half baked previous attempt, it'll be carried by representatives from both sides as a blatant breach of the rules. From the republicans because he's a dem and from the dems because they keep trying to play fair.
Ok so you can acknowledge that impeachment has already been tried and failed. If the consequences for doing a thing are already applied, there are no consequences for doing a thing.
the states that are predominantly controlled by the DNC definitely do. i know they don't want to though, these places all have a bunch of laws in place that can be more forcefully enforced now.
we aren't going to get anywhere bargaining with capitalists. i'm aware of the methods that they use to suppress alternative parties, but at this point we just have to figure out how to defeat them in a way that opens the door to move the overton window left. things have been moving right for a while, no point in pretending there's any actual potential for progress from a center-right liberal party that regularly collaborates with the far right.
They don't want to, but with enough voter pressure will if that's what it takes to stay in power. Unless there are candidates who are more left wing that have a realistic chance of wining elections at the state level it's probably necessary to work with what's in front of us, which probably means pressuring the dem representatives to move left. That'll take engaging with a significant portion of the electorate which is likely to be challenging, but probably the only way to slide the overton window left. I think the voters have to move first before the politicians follow, and they'll probably have to be cajoled as individuals rather than a party.
no point in pretending there's any actual potential for progress from a center-right liberal party that regularly collaborates with the far right. pretending like they can be fixed is delusional. what makes you think this pressure tactic can work? what makes you think that DNC will not work to turn left candidates into collaborators? i hardly think that political parties are "the answer", but limiting ourselves to only organizing within the liberal establishment is silly.
The 13th ammendment explicitly permits slavery, as long as the geverment says you committed a crime. (like being homeless)
Plantation hand-assed comment. John Brown would've ventilated your ass.
"John Brown would have killed you." The response to all liberals.
I'm going to phrase this as politely as I can to you, with respect to knowing you and your history on this site:Fuck that, you don't deserve my respect: if all you've got is paternalistic optics games and tone policing, then please shut the fuck up. I do not play optics games. I do not respect tone police. Optics games will not save anybody, will not push policy, will not do ANYTHING MORE than legitimize the propriety-poisoned society we're forced to toil under.The FACT OF THE MATTER IS every body, Black, brown, or otherwise, that gets funneled through the Department of Corrections pipeline is turned into a slave. By Amerikans. The FACT OF THE MATTER IS that every Amerikan that fails to fight this, that plays these cute little semantics games to make the crackers feel like they're not complicit, that bears plantation water, is JUST AS COMPLICIT in the slavery that never ended in this country.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a davel-tier comment.
I find myself saying "I had so much higher hopes for them" irritatingly frequently lately.
I gotta say I am sorry bout that dipshit and they got banned before I got back home, but your replies had me fucking dying while I was on my breaks reading the thread.
You pander to liberal ignorance in ways that will never lead them to the facts. "Letting them have their say" is actively enslaving and profiteering off of carceral chattel, you absolute fucking spin doctor. I feel like I've argued with you before on matters you had no fucking room to opine on, while book-worshipping the whole way-- which my undying and perennial response to is that if you apply rote book knowledge from one specific set of material conditions to another situation whose material conditions do not 1:1 match, you are committing book worship. THIS IS A FORM OF LIBERALISM.
EDIT: Oh my god, I have had this go-round with you before. Don't bother responding further; you're still the same old cracker with shit takes on the colonized and enslaved. I'm not doin this with you. Why they even let you still breathe here is beyond me; but they also allowed TheAnonymouseJoker and davel for good long runs, so maybe they just lenient.
The more I keep thinking about this, the funnier it gets, y'know-- it amazes me how any other time your shit takes on the colonized get addressed, you never have the time for it; but oooooh let someone talk mess about crackers, liberals, or the intersection of liberal crackers. Then you got all the time in the world to come play paternal.
We've done the polite explaining for decades and it's gotten us nowhere. What worked in China doesn't work in burgerland
Did not expect the wholesale rejection of Mao on Hexbear today.
It's worth noting that Mao's point (which is apparently tailism!) has been echoed all over the place (see
"we can never stop explaining"), and that nothing the U.S. left has tried worked either. I put more weight on things that have worked somewhere than on things that have worked nowhere.
okay, so patiently explain to them how prison-slave labour and the 13th amendment work.
What's a that old saying "you can't a convince a man against something his salary depends on"? Or something.
Liberals believe what they do because they have to to maintain their positions. You'll never convince a homeowner that's interested in their property values that crimes against humanity are occurring to raise said value. Time and time again they've been patiently explained too and their views still allow for horror. Absent explication these laws have obvious conclusions of which even incurious people should easily be able to divine, the fact so many cannot or claim to not shouldn't be surprising to a materialist. The serene explanations can be set aside for something else.
Maybe you want to but I'm not about to put the emotional labor in writing a response to a liberal that still wants to kill the homeless.
Absolutely nothing about that person's comment suggested they want to kill homeless people. They said they didn't believe Democrats want to enslave homeless people.
Arguing with them doesn't accomplish anything either. Wishing them a very
takes less time, is more satisfying, and is about as likely to change their minds.Arguing with them doesn't accomplish anything either
Believing that we can't change people's minds is defeatist. All I'm saying is that meeting "I don't think Democrats want to enslave the homeless" with essentially "kill urself" isn't going to change minds.
Comrade they are literally going to do this. They issue a ticket which a person cannot pay, and after so many tickets, incarcerate that person, and then they become slave labor, what's the exaggeration here
I agree, but I also don't feel the need to sugar coat topics to appease liberals in our explicitly leftist space.
As usual we are all correct here
If this is just a space for lefties, we shouldn't get so high on our own supply that we forget how to talk to libs, or the necessity of persuading people to join us.
If this is a lefty space that is frequently visited by non-leftists, and can be used as a way to persuade them, then we shouldn't be staking out the hottest possible take and telling people they should be shot if they disagree.
If this is a lefty space that is frequently visited by non-leftists, and can be used as a way to persuade them, then we shouldn't be staking out the hottest possible take and telling people they should be shot if they disagree.
Hate it to break the news, but to be quite frank, literaly nobody believes this, nobody sees HB like this, certainly if you stick around for long enough you'd have seen the cycles of people coming and going and how discourse changes.
Believe it or not this site used to be quite a bit more in favor of "harm reduction" in 2020. The current trend you see of complete rejection of Biden is not something that came overnight, even if for some that was Oct 7th, for most others 2o20 was already the compromise. Just go back and look at the trauma people here got from Biden's handling of COVID.
That is now part of this site history, "harm reduction" is now a complete and utter shitty joke and a meme as a result.
So as you can see, nobody now visiting this site believes there will be any discourse with people to the right of us like liberal dems. We did that and the Americans here already got burned from it.
We welcome liberals and people further to the right if they're honest about learning and changing, but nobody is under the illusion there is any debate or convincing anyone anymore. We tell Libs can go and eat shit and die, after all its what they told us throughout COVID for example.
I am amenable to this vibe but also its important to demonstrate to reddit brained
that we have actually done more work in developing a politics that has materially worked far greater for far more people than anything they have conceived of. They're here as guests and can ask questions in good faith but assertions are just a stupid thing to do going into any space that is dominated by any ideology
I don't think "well, gee, I know you love the Democrats, and who knows, maybe they had good intentions when they tried to criminalise homelessness" will lead to a mass movement
I'm not saying anything close to that. "Democrats will piss and moan and then go right along with the worst shit Republicans do" is basically the opposite.
Sticking to the actual facts -- Democrats are immediately going along with this horrible thing Republicans did -- does not mean pulling punches, or watering down how shitty Democrats are.
Sticking to the actual facts, both Republicans and Democrats are doing fucked up shit. It's not "Republicans do bad thing" followed by "Democrats follow along"
You don't go "whoops, guess I'll criminalize homelessness now that it's an option"
You don't dilute the bastards' crimes even by 1%, or the liberals will go "see, we may not be perfect, but it was the Republicans who started this! It's not our fault"
Sticking to the actual facts, both Republicans and Democrats are doing fucked up shit.
You're right, and you're right that we should point that out, too.
What I'm saying is that we should stick to the bad things Democrats actually do, not exaggerate. There is no need to exaggerate because Dems do plenty of horrible shit already, and exaggeration doesn't persuade people who don't already agree with you.
