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
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
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.
Absolutely.
Maybe I'm insufficiently cynical, but I see that more as them just being woefully ineffectual, rather than a conspiracy. I recognise that the result is largely indistinguishable, but it means there is a chance to fix it given time and effort. Said effort would be strongly resisted unless it came from a large enough block of the electorate that doing so meant certainly losing your seat. Anything less than that is either ignorable, or if it does flip the seat, does so without presenting a lesson others can learn from.
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?
Why reward the Republicans for being worse?
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.
Yes, they should, if a large enough proportion of the electorate make that case. I've been looking for up to date opinion polls on this, and rather appallingly most of them seems to show that there is a roughly equal split in those that think the israel's attacks are genocide and those who don't [1]. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting that, I was expecting a huge majority on the "it's genocide" side but that could just be the polls I've found. If you have any more heartening results please do share them. Even amongst Dem voters the split isn't as lopsided as you'd expect, and without those numbers changing the direction of decades of US policy towards Israel isn't going to happen. Again, if the voters change their direction enough, politics will follow.
[1] Here's one poll I found, which is likely to be as biased as any other, but it at least gives an idea of the numbers.
Lol no they won't because the American Government funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel, which gets put into places like AIPAC, which propagandize the public and have been doing so for decades. You are looking at the cart as if it is the horse, like a lunatic.
We literally can't have a legible conversation if you don't understand how consent is manufactured in the U S. Propaganda fucking works, that's why people spend billions of dollars on it.
I was trying to point out that the numbers of voters who think israel has gone "too far" isn't high enough to tip US policy at the moment, precisely because of the propaganda you describe. That number seems to be changing, albeit slowly, and we've already seen biden's tone change somewhat as that pressure changes.
Ah, here we go... the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical...
Don't make me tap the sign again:
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.'
OK, given the current reality of the upcoming election, what, in your personal opinion are the other options, and what do you think the outcomes of those would be?
I've stated these, noting their historical successes and failures, elesewhere in response to you, before you made this comment. You didn't engage, because you're not looking for an answer or to discuss anything tangible. Just to repeat your tired, concern-troll imaginary hypotheticals again and again and again...
As I said, I'm drowning in responses, and I've got to them out of order. I've seen your response to this elsewhere, but I'm talking about in this election, over the next few months, what are the options? Yes,the analogy was simple to the point of absurdity, but it wasn't me who brought it up.
I realise there is much that can be done over time, ranging from trying to swing the existing candidates further left via voter pressure to rather more revolutionary means, but I'm more focused on the next event. What happens in November? I perceive that trump would be a worse president, for the US and the world at large, than biden would. I realize that that's an arguable position, but all I've seen against it is people saying bidens bad. I'm not questioning that, he is, but that doesn't change the conclusion. Given that, from my point of view, there is only one reasonable course of action in the presidential election itself. Actions preceding that are more open, but anything that risks increasing the chance of trump getting in would be dangerous. I've mentioned elsewhere that down ticket votes are more of an insurance, so, to my mind, not voting still isn't the best course of action, but I can understand the other view point too.
You can vote for whoever you want.
But you're coming here asking for a magic bullet to a deeply ingrained problem, on an immediately short timeline, while also dismissing out of hand or waving away any option or arguement presented that doesn't fall within you own narrow acceptability of 'just vote for Biden because it's the lesser of two evils'.
It's not a good faith arguement. And I suspect you know that.
If you're just going to keep banging your head against this, looking for me or others who have engaged with you to say gosh you're right, we should get behind Biden then you're disappointed. Even aside for all the reasons that have been explained to you and you've mostly ignored to return to circular electoral logic, there's also the fact that many people here (myself included) aren't even American, so couldn't even if they wanted to.
If you're not just arguing for the sake of arguing, then I genuinely implore you to try and read, listen, and expand your horizons because your vision of what is possible and important is so narrow you couldn't slip a piece of paper through it.
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
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why not?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree, but I've not said anything about voting out capitalism.
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 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.
The voting model won't change how capitalism works. The stance the government "should" take is immaterial.
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?
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.
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.
You answered half the question.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
As I said before, that sort of change is going to take longer than the few months we have left before the election. Right now the choice is Biden or Trump for the next term. It sucks, but that is what it is. Don't forget the down-ticket elections too.
It'll do more good for you to stick your ballot up your ass. From a utilitarian perspective it will result in a higher net-gain of happiness.
Oww. Just think of the paper cuts! If that's your thing I'm certainly not going to kink shame, but it's not for me. ;)
Seriously though, yes I know that in a lot of places you're not going to achieve anything substantive by voting. What you do achieve though is keeping the numbers up. If the Dems get no votes in Republican leaning areas it doesn't tell them they're not left enough, it tells them they're not right enough as that's where the votes are. Does it make a big difference? Probably not, but it does make some difference, and that might be enough to start to swing things in future elections.
Oh no, the happiness wouldn't be yours, it would be mine, because you would be in pain.
You literally do not get it. It's literally confirmation bias for the Dems however you vote. If you give them votes they will think 'hey moving right is clearly working!' if you don't vote for them they think 'well dang we need to move more right!'. They've been doing this song and dance since the 60's, you cannot affect them by voting or participating in their electoral sham.
That's a fair point, which is why I keep saying that they actually need to hear people's voices. Enough people to affect the election need to be making a clear statement that they need to see things change in a particular way for parties to get their vote to make anything change. That needs to happen early enough to give the parties time to change their tune without scaring off the rest of their voters though, and I do not think there is time before November for the either party to reinvent themselves.
I can understand, and share, the anger at the Dems for how Biden's governed, though they currently control neither the legislative branch nor the judiciary. The question isn't whether they're good, it's whether the only other possible option is worse, and that sucks, but probably not as much as living through that other option.
So what's the window between presidential, state, and local elections, plus run-offs, school districts, sherriff, and all the others that 'is the time'?
And how many do you need to convince?
Half the voters for an entire party in a matter of weeks, every four years? Does this seem realistic to you?
And why would the party actually respond to those demands if you could organise the magic number of people in the exact right window of time?
I'm genuinely curious...
The presidential elections, along with the other positions elected then, are the highest stakes, so it's probably best not to try to upset them. That means starting in December and going for the next 3.5 years or so. This particular election seems more risky than most because of trump's position on may things, including his stated desire to be a dictator and his intention to fully support the worst things the dems have done and push them even further. Were it almost anyone else with the republican nomination I'd be less concerned.
What's the margin between the first and second place parties? You probably need to convince around that number of the leading parties voters. It's a straight numbers matter. Figure out how many are needed to swing the election, and that's how many you need to convince.
It's probably a lot less than that. As I said, it only needs to be enough to swing the election away from them. As to time frame, it needs to be all the time, not just for a few weeks. The party/candidate needs enough time to react to your demands and change it's position without scaring away the rest of it's voters.
They'd have to respond if they wanted to win the next election. Ultimately politicians need to keep wining to stay in their job. Imperil that and they have to listen or lose their job.
This is very silly. It's just another list of contradictions and wishful thinking without any demonstratable evidence.
Elsewhere you say that movements should be grassroots first. Elsewhere in the thread you then state that down-ticket races won't have much effect. Elsewhere still you argue that presidents taking executive action and pressuring them to do so is largely worthless because they don't control the other houses. All of these points seem strangely contradicatory, almost as if you're full of shit
But that will affect down-ballot races! School boards! Run-offs! Blah blah blah....
Also, if you think a presidential election cycle as defined by the parties is only six months long then you haven't been paying attention.
Dictators famously require being voted in and run on that ambition.
They also famously do that, succeed, and then insist four years later that in order to do it, they'll need a second term.
If you think Trump is a unique threat then you haven't read basically any American history whatsoever.
Nor do you understand how political power in the US works.
And if you believe he is a unique threat why don't you support any and all options to ensure he never again occupies the presidency?
Without threatening to withold votes, within an incredibly narrow electoral only parameter, in a tiny time frame where anything less than total guarunteed success means its not worth doing. This is what you've asserted here and throughout this thread.
Also, as I've asked multiple times elsewhere (funny how you don't respond to those) please provide some examples of the Democrats making an about face on policy within one election cycle, based purely on electoralism. Bonus points if you can provide some examples of that without even threatening to withhold votes.
Except during the build up to elections for that party, which, in America, is essentially all of the time. See below and keep in mind it doesn't include any kind of local elections for councillers, governers, state positions etc:
And if you don't achieve that magic number in that tiny window, then you have to vote for a party that will make it even harder to do next time and start again by your logic.
But you assert that if they refuse to change their position, you have to vote for them anyway. So there is no threat of them losing an election, because you advocating for voting for them no matter what, and having not using any leverage you might have. (This is another key point you never address whenever it's put to you) So why would they change their position? Do you see your circular logic yet?
They don't care about losing their job. They care about not going against the wants of donors who will provide them their next job. They'll become lobbyists, or sit on boards, or even just be given cushy party positions that aren't voted on in exchange for their loyalty to the donor class.
And the donor class and party sure as shit don't care about candidates losing their positions. They can just drop another one in, usually at less cost than the previous one since they're not established and have no leverage of their own.
In fact, the people who run the party machinary often stand to benefit from their candidates losing elections, as it increases donations which give them power, keep them employed, increase their salaries and comissions etc.
For your assertion to be true you'd have to believe that the only political apparatus is the candidate themselves, independent of the party structure or donors, and that each of them is a purely motivated being of pure civic duty with no other options or oppurtunities.
Again, you know that's not the case so your arguement is either disingenuous bullshit or you don't have literally any understand of the electoral process that you profess to be so confident in your opinions of how its the only option.
I mean no disrespect by this, but I'm going to pick only a few points from your reply, I believe you and I have hashed over the others already in many threads.
Each of those is in a specific context. Yes any meaningful movement is going to have to be grassroots first, without that it has do driving force to overcome entrenched interests. Down ticket races wont have as much of an effect if biden is president and, preferably, the dems end up controlling at least one house. If trump wins the presidency then I would want to see both houses controlled by the dems, and certainly at least one. So whether the down ticket races are critical, or have less effect rather depends on who gets the presidency. Assuming the worst and voting accordingly there would seem like prudent course of action.
As I said elsewhere, each of those is on it's own cycle. The major election of president, and the down ticket votes at that point are probably the most consequential, so deciding to demand changes in policy for them is probably best done early in the cycle, rather that in the last few months, to give he candidates time to incorporate that into their plans. I appreciate that many people probably are shouting about this, but it's clear that it's not loud enough, or coordinated enough to affect the candidates or other voters.
I know their positioning isn't defined that soon before the election, but if you want to see it change they need time to do so. We've seen that can be moderately swift (the unaffiliated protests for example got some small results in a shorter space of time) but changing messaging in the run up to the election is seen as damaging, so parties try not to do it.
I refer you to the rather well known case of a certain wannabe artist in Germany. He'd made it clear that he would act like a dictator and was voted in to an amount of power, from which he seized total control. The way I see it, if trump is willing to say he wants to be a dictator, it's one if the few things he's said that I should believe.
I am not aware of him saying he wanted to be a dictator before his first term, but could easily have missed that. Not winning a second term is what seems to have pushed him over the edge into saying that. The rest of his hateful rhetoric, yes that was going from before term one.
Short of violence, as far as I can see making sure he doesn't win this election will do that as he'll be far to gone to demenia by the next election to be a threat. Who'll take his place is a separate question, but there is time to deal with that before then. That's what's confusing me about so many people's responses here. The reality is that there are only two people who can be the next president, bad and worse. It's an atrocious choice to have to make, but it seems clear to me that one one course of action makes sense. I know that to others a different course makes sense. That's why I keep asking: given the electoral reality in front of us right now, what course of action would you, personally, have people take, and what what would you anticipate the outcome of that being?
I've tried to explain this is a previous post, but again, withholding votes makes sense, if, and only if, the candidate knows why and can respond to that without losing more of their other voters. If you've made your case to biden's campaign then I apologise for underestimating you. The same goes for the down ticket candidates, they can only respond if they know your position and it makes sense from a voter count to do so.
I don't think I've said anything about the democrats making an about face in one election cycle and certainly not without voters threatening to withhold their votes. I have tried to explain that I'm not saying people shouldn't threaten to withhold their votes, but should do so in a way that gets that information to the parties early enough that they can incorporate it into their plan. Ultimately, if a party thinks it can win an election if it can win over those voters and not lose more voters it already has, it has to do that to win. The uncommitted protest showed that a large enough group of voters making it clear their vote was contingent on certain changes can and will have an effect. It wasn't a huge effect on biden's Gaza policy, but it was noticeable. Critically it was done in a way that didn't risk letting a worse option take over the White House again.
I've addressed this multiple times. I'm not advocating voting for them no matter what. I am advocating voting for biden in this election because the alternative is worse and the odds are so close to 50/50 that the risk of trump getting in is too high. Down ticket I would be more comfortable seeing more dems get in, primarily as insurance against a trump presidency, but also because so many of the republicans are cleaving so hard to trump that they're the worst choice in their races too.
Ok, but by that logic there is no point withholding your vote at all, as it isn't an incentive, but seems to be what you're advocating. I agree that most politicians are going to walk out into a comfortable second job for the people who bankrolled them, but in order to do that they need to be of value to them first. In order to do that they need to stay in power for long enough to get some of what the donor wants done. That is why they do care about being re-elected at least a few times. Without that they don't get their fairytale ending. Withholding votes is therefore a useful tactic. I haven't argued against that at all, all I have stated is that as the election nears, unless you can honestly say you've made the candidates for each position, from president down, aware of your position and what they need to do to win your vote, withholding it isn't useful. In the case of the presidential election in particular I would say vote to minimise harm, in the other elections give thought to what your vote, or non-vote, will actually cause. If you're in a solidly non-swing State your individual action probably doesn't change anything but the margin one candidate wins by, so it might be reasonable to make a point. In a swing State it might be more of a case of aiming to minimise harm again. It sucks. All of it sucks, but that's the state of things right now.
This is just an endless repetition of the same tired arguements you've posted multiple times in this reply alone, never mind the myriad replies to me and others. So I'll try to strip this down to the simplest core points possible.
I don't care who you vote for. Vote whatever and move on. If you're concerned about the state of the world, pull the lever and then focus your attention on something more productive. Anything more productive.
We've gotten away from it with this distraction, but this original post is about the wholesale criminalisation and incarceration of unhoused people in order to use them for defacto slave labour.
You're spending all this time and energy and intellectual effort on gaming out elaborate electoral fantasies like; if only we could get the politicians to hear us, in the right way, at the right time, then they'd change. They won't. They don't 'hear you' not because of timing or messaging, but because their material interests are entirely in supporting policies like this.
You're spending all this effort building an elaborate and doomed philosophy and strategy out of magical thinking and then more trying to get others on board.
You'd be better off going and handing out toiletries to the homeless, doing mutual aid, literally anything else.
This thinking has locked us in a rightward spiral for the last half century.
I trust you know the definition of insanity.
To be clear, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but that doesn't change what is in front of us. Yes, it's lamentable, yes it shouldn't need to be like this, and yes, it didn't need to be like this, but it is. As I've asked several of your fellow posters, given the reality in front of us, what would you personally suggest people do, and what do you anticipate the results being, both electorally and socially?
Democrats need to lose this election. There has to be an electoral consequence for openly supporting an active genocide. No, this doesn't mean supporting Trump -- his genocidal rhetoric should get the lowest amount of support possible.
I'm probably going to vote for some non-genocidal presidential candidate with no chance at winning, then vote for Democratic congresspeople. If enough people do this the message will be "the votes are here, but not if you're going to do all the things you say we should be terrified of Trump doing anyway." Democrats holding at least one house of Congress will also (minimally) impede Republicans and prevent idiot lib pundits from writing "maybe everybody just wants fascism?" articles.
Hopefully this will open space for a significantly more left candidate in 2028, the way Hillary eating shit in 2016 opened space for Bernie to be the plurality favorite in 2020. Between that and libs finally taking the bad stuff Biden is doing seriously once Trump is in office, maybe we'll shift a few things in a slightly better direction.
And that's just the electoral piece. Beyond that, working on genuine harm reduction projects, trying to unionize your workplace, joining political organizations left of the Democratic Party, and trying to persuade people that Democrats are a dead end are all good things to do.
This isn't a complete plan for getting to bare minimum improvements on issues like climate change, healthcare, imperialism, etc. (and note how that standard is never applied to Democrats), but my thinking is it can open up avenues to those improvements that aren't currently available.
That's possibly a reasonable approach, although I think the Dems would need a solid majority in both houses for a trump presidency to be even moderately safe. I do like it as a way to open up space in future, but as I said, it relies on the Dems controlling both houses or the republicans will end up just getting around them in some dubious manner. I haven't been able to find a prediction or polls for the congress though, so I don't really know how that's looking like it'll stack up.
A Biden presidency isn't moderately safe. Internationally, we're supporting a genocide and a dozen other horrible things. Domestically, there has been no notable federal action on women's right and LGBT rights, less than nothing is being done to address our increasingly (under Biden) overfunded and overmilitarized police, Biden put down an imminent strike, we're going backwards on the environment, and a dozen other horrible things. Jesus Christ, Dems are talking about violating international law and denying asylum requests at the southern border, in addition to doing nothing about nutjobs like Greg Abbot trying to close the border unilaterally.
You have to let go of the idea that "oh we can't risk Republicans getting power," because Dems are doing so much of what Republicans said they'd do just a few years ago. Democrats are a speed bump at best; the ride is unsafe whether that speed bump is there or not.
I was more referring to the amount of damage an unchecked trump presidency could do. Biden is bad, but trumps been pretty clear he wants to be worse. As I said, I think your approach of not Biden for president and Dems for congress might be reasonable providing there are enough anti-trump numbers in both houses to prevent the worst that trump tries to do.
What do you mean the next few months? Hasn't Biden been president for almost four years?
Yes, but I haven't seen much in the way of wide spread and coordinated campaigns to put issues that matter in front of him and other Dems until fairly recently. That's the issue, without a group of voters, large enough to change the outcome of elections, making their voices heard early enough for the parties to change their platforms without scaring off the rest of their voters little will change.
The uncommitted campaign was in April.
People have been protesting, organising, and in some cases taking legal action for ten months now since October 7th.
There's been an international protest, legal, and lobbying effort for Palestinian rights since the late 1940s.
But who swear infinite loyalty that they never actually will refuse to vote for said party, no matter what.
How do you force a party to do something it's diametrically opposed to while insisting you and everyone will always support them and obliterating even the mildest possible leverage you have?
Yes, which is 'fairly recently'. The good news is it did have some effect, which rather illustrates what I'm saying. Enough voters speaking in one voice, in a way that doesn't cause the republicans to have more power, works.
They have, yes, and I take my hat off to them for spending that energy doing it, but there aren't enough of them. Until there are enough that their numbers make an electoral difference, all the protesting achieves is 'awareness' amongst the electorate. Given enough time and dedication that might be enough to swell the numbers to the point they have an effect, but until that point politicians are going to carry on. As I mentioned to someone else, the opinion polls I've found regarding American's view of the conflict suggest about the same number of people see it as genocide as those who don't, which is utterly horrifying, but explains why politicians are sticking to their path. When those numbers change, so will the political response.
You don't. You, as a large enough group, make that support contingent on conditions being met. The issue is that if your group is too small, it has no effect, but if it's bigger than that, is ignored, and withholds its votes, it hands victory to the opposing party, which is likely to be detrimental to that group, so the group needs to be large enough that it can't be ignored. Gathering that size of group, coordinating them and getting the message across is a large undertaking, but without it you've got little chance of having an effect.
Believe me, a website full of marxist are well aware of the power of numbers.
My point, again, is that you advocate that the only acceptable action is one that makes organising, growing those numbers, and using that power impossible.
Your arguement is bullshit, full of impossibilities, internal contradictions, and circular logic. And we both know fine well what you're doing here. But like an insomniac cat with a ball of string, it can be fun to bat it around for a while, especially if others might stumble in here and see how it unravels.
It's not so much the only acceptable action as the one that minimises the damage over the next term. It certainly doesn't make organising or growing numbers impossible, just difficult. As far as I can see though, the thing that makes it even more difficult is that no one is making a clear and compelling case for a different approach. So, as I've asked several of your fellow posters, given the current reality, what, in your personal opinion, should people do, and what do you expect the outcome of that to be?
Your original premise, that you've repeated, is that not doing this is unacceptable. You also never addressed why you draw the line there when I asked elsewhere.
Then why would one do something that you acknowledge makes the task much more difficult? And then add all the other myriad restrictions you've dictated (and haven't address when I've pointed them out)? Unless of course, you're full of shit and are doing piss-weak concern trolling.
Literally hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people throughout history have done this to great success, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Once again, you don't engage on those points. I wonder why.
People in this thread have articulated everything from broad marxist philosphies on developing proletarian power, to specific use of strikes, to even electoral strategies that fit within your deliberately impossibly narrow 'acceptable' electoral frame. You've ignored or handwaved all of them away.
If you don't engage in good faith, you don't get further effort and discussion. And you haven't, even when you've been offered it.
But if you really want to look deeper into the issue I'd suggest starting here.
As mentioned in another thread, I've been getting replies on about 25 threads, and I'm trying to reply to each in a reasonable way. I wasn't really expecting this level of response to what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial comment that the supreme court had been packed by trump. We've definitely covered a fair amount more since then, and I appreciate the time people have taken to do so. I've also noticed that you are one of the most prolific of those responders, so thank you, I know I am almost certainly trying your patience.
It seems to me that at each election, the sensible thing to do is act to minimise the resultant harm. Between elections is when the work of changing course needs to happen. Yes there are multiple cycles of elections at different levels, each can be treated as it's own task. I think that's what you're asking, but I'm not certain.
Because not doing so makes it even harder. The further right politics drifts the harder it will be to pull it left and the harder life will be for a great many people.
The only things I've be advocating are not doing anything that would increase the chance of trump winning and making sure that candidates in any election know why you would withhold your vote early enough that they can actually do something about it without losing more of the rest of their voters.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. Yes, many have advocated for different approaches throughout history, and in other countries, with some success. What I am referring to is the here-and-now. Over the last electoral cycles, where has the messaging been to actually inspire large enough groups of the electorate that there is a better way? The fact that large enough groups haven't been inspired to demand change means the messaging isn't getting out effectively.
They have, and I thank them for it. I have tried to respond as best I can, if I have missed points, or not articulated myself well that's on me, but I have certainly not handwaved away anyone. I do worry that the approach of "I'm not going to vote for biden because he is evil/hasn't earned my vote/isn't left enough/whatever" ignores the fact that the outcome of the presidential election is a simple either/or at this point. Assuming you are closer to biden's politics that trumps, not voting just tips the balance slightly towards trump. This doesn't penalize biden in any meaningful way, but it does penalize the people who trump wants to harm. He's made it clear he supports all the same genocide that biden does, but to an even greater degree, so that won't change for the better, and he's demonizing minorities, so they'll suffer even more. To me that seems like a simple choice, but it seems it's not to everyone. Further down ticket I feel like the dems remain the least bad choice, if only to limit trump should he get in.
One of the other posters suggested they would vote for a presidential candidate who couldn't win, and then dems doe the rest of the ticket, and whilst that certainly wasn't my first approach, I agreed that it could actually work. They made a good point that that could open up some space for more left wing candidates by showing the votes were there if they were earned. That approach sort of matches with what I was saying before that as long as the dems hold one or more of the houses it would limit the harm from a trump presidency. I don't like the concept, but I can see how it could have the desired outcome.
Har har. I was sort of expecting that. As I said, I'm doing my best to engage in good faith, but I think we might be coming at this from such different directions that neither of us are actually getting our meaning across effectively.
Good faith isn't just about being polite and sounding civil. It's about actually engaging with other ideas presented. I don't believe you've done that, as evidenced by simply restating the exact same point again and again - vote Biden because he's better than Trump - across a dozen replies to me and more to others, despite the fact that they've articulated why they either don't agree or reject that extremely narrow framework altogether.
You seem to be caught in a trap that everything is about a message that would be accepted if only it was articulated correctly; whether that's me 'understanding you' or politicians 'hearing us' despite having directly opposing material interests.
I understand your meaning. I just don't agree and reject it for the many reasons I've stated.
The rest I've addressed elsewhere.
So continuing in this circular arguement would be pointless at this point since you clearly have nothing new to add. Hence, PigPoopBalls.
I concur, and I have genuinely been trying to engage with the ideas people post. You're right that I have been focused on an extremely narrow framework, because that is what I see before us. I've been asking what people suggest doing in that framework because I'm trying to understand people's position and what actions they think would be appropriate at that scale. The wide points eloquently made by you and other posters involve seem extreme to me, and I accept you may see that as a failing on my part. That makes it hard to engage with them on more than a superficial level. I felt like the conversations continuously ended up with us talking at cross-purposes, which is why I kept trying to bring them back to the points I was trying to understand.
I still struggle to see how people don't see trump as a greater threat to their freedom (or whatever freedom they feel they have) than biden, but I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just to comprehend their point of view.
I thank you for actually continuing to discuss this with me, but I think I've tried your patience more than sufficiently, so I'm going to disengage from the various threads we have now.
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?
You're rather illustrating my point. Abortion should absolutely be legal, and the majority do seem to want it (though I fear that might be eroded as the hard-right brain rot spreads), but not enough people were making a fuss about it loudly enough until it was too late. By that I mean there needed to be massive protests about it from the moment people started caring about it to the moment the relevant legislation was passed. Continuous vigilance is also needed to avoid that being later eroded. Unfortunately none of that happened in sufficient numbers.
The difficulty is, of course, that most people don't care about this sort of thing until it affects them directly, and those who do care get exhausted trying to make it happen without the numbers needed.
Given the current reality though, what would you, personally suggest people should do, and what do you anticipate the result would be?
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.
This is the rather bleak and depressing crux of the matter. Nothing substantial will change until that, or at the very least, that appearance of that indifference changes.
And we should do this by strengthing the very power structures that destroy the movement, control the narrative against it, and continue to vote for those doing both those and the genocide at the same time? Does that sound like a winning strategy to you?
Ideally not strengthening the power structures (that would be what giving the republicans power would do), but not deliberately giving power to the more tyrannical and despotic presidential candidate and his party would seem like a sane approach. Given the reality we face, that either Biden or trump will be the next president and that each legislative houses will be controlled either by the Dems or republicans, what would you personally suggest people do, and what do you think the short and long term outcomes of that approach would be?
Nope. Both parties are the same power structure. Try again.
Organise in opposition, using any and all methods to produce results including but not limited to; protest, strike action, lawfare, self-governance, direct action, sabotage, and armed resistance.
The outcomes will be what they have always been, some losses and some victories, but history has proven these tactics and struggles to have produced great leaps forward and historic gains that have been very difficult to roll back. Including almost all of successes for the global working class, minority populations, and social progress for hundreds of years.
This is historical fact.
Now please provide some examples of historic postive change brought about purely by electoralism. And you can have extra points if you can name some brought about purely by electoralism that did not include either withholding or threatening to withold votes, since that's the hill you've decided to die on.
Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.
Would be a fine idea if the party who would have power in the interim were not basically religious zealots hell bent on destroying everything that previous movements have built up. By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.
These are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is, do you want to get your way because you made more noise than the other side, or because enough people believe in the same thing as you? The former is precarious, as it can be rolled back in the same way. the latter is more enduring. Maybe you can do the first and then back it up with the second, I'm not sure. Protests of various sorts can be useful to gain recognition and get people to think about your cause, but only up to the point you inconvenience them too much. After that you start to see opinions hardening against the cause.
I think I've been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I've been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here. A small number of votes withheld without a clear explanation to the candidates as to why, and enough time for them to incorporate that into their strategy, says nothing to them and risks handing power to a worse and less controllable option. Get enough people together that their votes are actually consequential and have everyone contact the candidates explaining what they need to do to win their votes, then you'll have a reliable effect.
They're the same side. You could do with improving your reading comprehension.
Handwaving bullshit excuses. Not the time. Most important election of our lifetimes. Unique threat. Blah blah blah Already addressed elsewhere.
No one here is advocating for reforming the Democrats. Again, zero reading comprehension, zero understanding.
Ahistorical nonesense. Change has almost never been made by electoral majority but by the threat of the alternative being less palatable to the ruling class / party than changing their position. As stated elsewhere there are countless examples throughout history both recent and ancient. Go and read something, anything really. You haven't provided a single example of success for your proposed method dispite me asking numerous times for some. Because you're full of shit.
No, your original premise was that you cannot withhold your vote for Biden because Trump would be worse. You've moved the goalposts when people have taken apart that circular logic. Now you say you can withhold your vote, but only if you're guarunteed a certain victory within a set of arbitrary paramaters set by you that make it impossible, while hand-waving away or outright opposing and even supportive non-electoral strategy - just like you did with the point above. Almost as if you're totally full of shit.
The vast majority here think electoralism is worthless and have made this point to you. You've then proposed and even more limited and worthless version of it. Plus showing almost total ignorance of the very basics of how it even works.
And then you copy and paste, repeat, copy and paste, repeat... we're done here, I'm bored now.
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?
The president is a bit of a special case, in that there's one of them, and of the two candidates one has said he wants to be a dictator, whilst also enthusiastically supporting all the worst positions the Dems have taken and wanting to make them more extreme. So, judged between those two one is clearly a less bad option. I'm certainly not saying either is a good option, but that's the current situation, and anything that increases the risk of trump getting in, especially with a republican majority in one or both houses, is surely a bad idea.
Down-ticket, individuals withholding their votes will have minimal effect teaching them anything. It has to be a large enough groundswell that it can't be ignored as it'll effect the outcome. Changes start with the electorate, not with politicians. Get enough people of one mind and then things will change. That is neither easy nor quick to do though, and I don't see it happening before November.
Nope. You've retreated into you endless loop of electoral hypothetical again, where only two things are ever possible and you have to do one of them anyway. Without addressing the contradication at the core of it, which is why I asked you how you rationalised it.
No it's not. There's more than two presidential candidates. And all elected positions are filled only by one eventual winner from the crop of candidates, just like literally every election. For someone preaching that the only possibility is electoralism in the narrowest term, you don't seem very knowledgable on, you know, actual elections, including the specific ones you're referencing.
And you can (and in some cases do) argue that anything short of voting for, capmapigning for, donating to, and never ever showing any disatisfaction with the Democrats qualifies as this. Why stop at withholding your vote? Or campaigning for change 'at the wrong time'? Have you been door knocking and phone banking for Biden? If not, why not? If you have, why aren't you doing it now, and in every spare moment, or quitting your job to do it full time? Have you donated every cent you own to the Democratic party? What about selling any property or other assets you have? Aren't you part of the problem?
(And that's just within your myopic electoral view, never mind non-electoral strategies from the common to the extreme)
Maybe I should have been clearer. There are only two candidates with any realistic prospect of winning the election, and only one position to fill. There are many representatives and senators, so their individual contribution to the whole is less. The president is the head of the executive and isn't diluted in the same way.
You're reading things I haven't said, so I can't really answer that.
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.
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.
You are right, money is required to spread rhetoric in the media, but the dominance of traditional large scale media seems to be waning somewhat as people consume more and more online the avenues to do so multiply, and the cost drops. Considering some of the weird advertising I see around the 'net the cost can't be all that high now, which hopefully opens up space in people's focus of attention to receive more diverse messages. This is what I mean by saying voters opinions are swayed in a lot of different ways. Voters, in general, may not entirely agree with you, but present a compelling enough case as to why one side is worth voting for, or the other side isn't, you do see a swing in voting. Populists exploit this very effectively because it's what they're good at. The rest of the political spectrum needs to wake up to it and make their case in ways that actually resonate with voters.
Motherfucker, it is hard enough to work and go to school. I don't have to build a fucking governing vision for people, as if Republicans or Democrats actually do that. All I ever ask for these days is some basic fucking stuff, like idk, stop giving weapons to aparthied governments to kill brown people? And you think you can combat the totalitarian privatized neoliberal system of government through votes?
The net cost of running electoral campaigns at a national or even state level is absolutely staggering, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, even for online advertising space. For me 25000 dollars would be a game changer, hell even a thousand dollars would improve my life significantly, millions is out of the question. And this is besides the point that organic online viral campaigns do not have a real statistical affect on American electoral politics, because all the places that used to cater towards that have been astroturfed all to hell. Reddit is basically bot-farmed for foreign affairs. The biggest online organic movement is literally Palestine, and the government reaction has been to BAN TIKTOK. You are acting like it's a level playing field. It is not. We are at a large, intentional, systemic disadvantage, and we don't even have the money to get the ball rolling in the right direction. Mostly we just piss people off who can only hear rhetoric, which, while funny, doesn't actually do anything.
There are no 'populists' you utterly contemptible moron. There are liars for capital and that is it. Stop lecturing me on things you don't even have a basic grasp on.
OK, ignoring the ire in you post:
As we saw with the uncommitted protests, change can happen with enough pressure. It wasn't much, but it was a noticeable change in tone. Now imagine that amount of targeted pressure had been, or is, kept up for an extended period of time. Changes would absolutely happen.
The thing is, they do present that vision, even if all that amounts to is "more of the same, with some differences that may or may not matter to you". Without a compelling alternative vision voters aren't going to turn away from that, because it's the only message they're getting. I didn't mean you personally when I talked about presenting such a case, but a cohesive enough group has to form to do so in order to give people that alternative. I'm not talking about running an electoral campaign, that is clearly out of reach, but finding ways of getting that vision out in other ways. As you say,places like reddit are bot-farmed, or they're astroturfed, but still huge numbers of people go there and are exposed to the messaging published on those platforms. Again, none of this is about you doing it personally, but about getting people together to do it collectively.
The more people who get to hear the message and align with it, the easier it is to collect that money, making it easier to get the message out further. As I said, it's not about an election campaign, it's about getting enough people to decide they will demand a specific change.
Correct. It's probably good stress relief, but it's not achieving much in the way of getting more people to come together.
I'm not going to argue with you there, I was just using the more common word for it.
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.
spoiler: it's not democratic and never has been
I did say 'claims'. The point is that unless a significant proportion of the electorate are demanding a specific change it's less likely to be made. If enough people demand it in exchange for votes a politician can't ignore the issue without losing their next election and being replaced.
So your arguement is that to change an undemocratic system you must only work within the boundries of the facade of that system (electorialism), whilst also not doing that (you must still vote for the party).
I'm not saying you must vote for the party, we were originially just talking about the presidential election. However, individuals choosing not to vote for the party does tend to give the benefit to the opponent, which may not be a good choice in the current political climate. To be effective it has to be a large enough movement, making it's requirements known clearly, for there to be a measurable effect. Without that there is no impetus for the system to change. Get enough people demanding better than FPTP voting and you'll find a candidate that supports it. Find enough candidates across the nation who support it and it can be made to happen. Fix that and other changes become easier to achieve.
Yes, you are. And the elected president is the head of the party. Again, for someone so hung up on it, you don't actually seem to know anything about how elections or electoral politics work.
Here you are saying it again, as you have dozens of times throughout this thread, as you well know.
Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this. It has no effect without the threat of combined removal of votes and (at least the implicit threat of) violent opposition.
You assert this repeatedly but never offer what those requirements are or how to achieve them. Only methods that directly limit the ability to do that. So please quantify your assertion and your strategy.
But I can't vote for those candidates because I have to vote for the supposedly 'lesser evil' of the two parties that oppose it, right? That's your original premise here.
Also, FPTP has been used in the UK since the middle ages despite the fact that it's always faced opposition from voters. So what's your timeline for this reform via narrow electoralism?
The elected president is typically the head of one of the parties, yes, although I haven't seen anything saying they must be (please let me know if there is a rule about that). However, they are separate to the party, being the executive rather than legislative branch. The way I see it, this year's election is uniquely evil, in that on the one hand you have Biden and on the other hand you have trump, who has stated his desire to be a dictator, and who wants to take all the worst positions the current administration have taken and make them even more extreme, whilst also stripping even more rights. Neither option is good, one is worse. Given that one of the two will be the next president of the United States of America, I would advocate for the less extreme one.
Yes, that's what I am saying. Apologies if I wasn't clear this time. Without that, no matter how big a movement is it'll be ineffective. However unless it is large enough the removal of votes will either achieve nothing or be counter productive by letting a worse option in.
As I mentioned to someone else, look at the margin between the first and second place parties, and you probably need a movement of that order of magnitude to be able to swing the election. Then you need all of those people making contact with their representative or potential representative and laying out exactly what is needed to get their vote. It's not complicated, just tough to get enough people to agree with you.
As I said, initially we were talking about the presidential election, where I would say that ensuring trump doesn't get in is vital. Swinging one or both houses to the Dems would also derisk trump being president. If you support an issue, say voting systems, you need enough people with you to ensure you are heard. Deciding to withhold your vote at a late stage, without explaining to the candidates exactly why will achieve nothing.
You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about. The president, senators, congresspeople, and all the way down are all the party dipshit. Go and learn the absolute basics. No investigation, no right to speak.
I know how you see it, because you're copy and pasting the same ignorant vibes-based nonesense I've already addressed elsewhere but you couldn't reply to or defend. Next.
No, it's not, because you advocate against even threatening to withhold voting for a candidate. That is the original premise of your entire arguement you came here to make.
(Also, don't think I didn't notice you cut the rest of my quote to make it only about electoralism again and not other pressures)
Anything but assured victory is unacceptable and should not be risked. Also you must limit yourself to only a very narrow set of activities, during a tiny time window, that make that kind of organising impossible, while strengthing your opponent. This is definitely a good faith arguement.
You're repeating your contradictory circular logic again here because you can't engage with me addressing this point elsewhere. Are you not bored yet?
Straw man bullshit because you can't and won't address the actual points people, including me have made elsewhere in the thread. No one is advocating for this. You're arguing against a position that you made up because your orginal premise is, was, and has been shown to be bullshit concern trolling throughout this thread.
They're of the same party, yes, but doing a different part of the job of governance. I was trying to draw a distinction between the vote for president, and the votes for senators congress people and all the rest. My point was that there is a single president and so getting the least terrible is better than getting the more terrible. This does assume we agree on least and most terrible, but see below on that. The rest of the votes it makes more sense to do as you're saying, although I'd be worried about ending up with trump as president and both houses being controlled by the republicans. Having at least one of those three democrat controlled would reduce the harm a somewhat, and having more dem controlled would reduce it further. Not eliminate it, but make the situation worse more slowly.
There are only six realistically possible outcomes from the next election; trump or biden as president and either two dem houses, one of each, or two republican houses. Absolutely none of those are a good option, but one will happen, so it seems sensible to try to push towards the least harm.
Ok, are you saying that you see absolutely no difference in outcome between trump and biden being president? None at all? Because I know too many people who'll be actively harmed by trump being president who would not suffer that level of hard under biden to be willing to say that myself.
I was advocating primarily for avoiding trump being the next president, and suggesting that given the electoral reality as it stands, not deliberately acting to increase the chance of republicans being elected elsewhere. Withholding you vote is a sensible tactic, so long as the candidates in question know exactly why you are withholding it, and can adjust to that without losing more of their other voters. The trouble here is that for a lot of policies they all agree, so you withhold your vote from everyone. Fair enough, but there are also issues they disagree on, and now you need to consider those too.
Sorry, I'm not deliberately dropping bits, but people are replying to me on about 25 different threads, ranging from the rather curt 'fuck off' through the somewhat intemperate, to quite thoughtful discussions suggesting approaches that might meaningfully reduce the harm in this cycle whilst also hopefully leading to longer term change, so it's a little hard to keep up, especially when life is also occurring. I thought that bit got to the heart of what you were saying, as the previous bit (Plenty of movements throughout history have done this. Polling data shows this.) seemed to be agreeing with me. The call to, or implicit threat of violence, is, I feel, less necessary until all other options are exhausted.
I'm not saying it is unacceptable or should not be risked, I'm just pointing out that the outcome is likely to be neutral or (more) detrimental unless there is a large enough number to make it a more sure proposition. Sometimes that (more) detrimental outcome is worth risking, perhaps you see that it is in this election, but as I said above, I see trumps stated desires as harmful enough that they should be avoided. The rest of the ticket is sort of insurance against the presidential vote going to him, and so certainly easier to decide to withhold.
I may very well have misunderstood various peoples position then, as I haven't seen anyone say they're actually engaging with their candidates, only that they want to withhold their votes. If that engagement is implied I do apologise for misunderstanding everyone.
This whole repetitive arguement isn't going anywhere and I don't believe it's worth going through every point again when we're repeating ourselves.
You keep restating your position - vote for Biden because it's better than Trump - as though I don't understand it. I do. As I've said many times, I think your focus and insistence on this point and only this point is myopic to the point of being worthless.
I have no idea what you're trying achieve here. You don't seem interested in engaging with ideas beyond your very narrow view. Does your ego just need someone here to tell you that you're right and they'll pull the lever for Biden? Are you so conflicted about the shakiness of your rational for doing so that you require some sort of validation? If you're trolling then you're not very good at it since you appear more just confused and a little sad than anger inducing. Perhaps you're looking for some kind of gotcha to post elsewhere for likes? I honestly have no idea.
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.
shut the fuck up liberal
perhaps more eloquent and succinct than my response
Y'all are the two wolves in me.
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.
Reddit brain
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?
deleted by creator
Shut the fuck up reddit
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.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.
Scalia
Ah, you're right.
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.
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.
Pretty much, a complete lack of killer instinct.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I think there were enough factions that it's hard to say Democrats as a whole did anything. I'm pretty sure some did sit down and try to convince her to retire, but then I suspect others told her she was too special and should hold on, which speaks to your next point.
That sounds like a good goal. In your opinion, how do we go about achieving it without leaving the country to the mercy of the republicans in the mean time?
Whilst I do understand your point, I would say that magnitude plays a part too. The fact we even have to consider that is appalling.
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.
The Democratic leadership likes taking bribes just as much.
I've not doubt. It's just the supreme court that have done it so blatantly.
I've got some bad news for you lemmitor
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.
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.
If Joe Biden were cool he'd do it.
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.
This was the exact statement Sickos made at the top of the thread: '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?' I thought it was posted in a jokey way, and so engaged with is as such. It seems I was wrong in that, for which I apologies to both you and them.
Furthermore, given the latest supreme court ruling regarding presidential immunity, it seems I was wrong in assuming such an action it would be too extreme even for the US. I retract my statements to that effect. Seen as he's been given a green light to do anything that could be considered an official act, this would now seem like an entirely feasible approach to the problem.
"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
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.
You are demonstrating that you do not understand the most basic point of the analogy.
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.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
That assumes competence on the part of all participants, which I don't believe to be the case. Incompetence gives the same outcome, but can, theoretically, be fixed.
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.
-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.
Yes, that's true, and it's not just the left but minorities of all kinds too. I would rather find a way of walking back from that brink, rather than deliberately pushing the country over it.
If by that you mean that the electorate need to be engaged with politics more than every four years, then yes, absolutely. That's why I keep saying people should be in contact with their representatives regularly, so they know your name and what you stand for. That should be happening in large groups ideally as it becomes hard to ignore when the numbers start putting you at risk of losing the next election.
i am begging you to shut the fuck up
Death to America
they could decriminalize homelessness right now.
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 difference is, I don't think it would fail in the scenario you put forward, so there would be a consequence. Now if we assume it's biden, and he's unlikely to see out another term even if elected, maybe the risk/reward ration swings enough to make it a realistic possibility, but in general I suspect a president assassinating multiple supreme court justices would lead to them being impeached successfully in short order.
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.