|
Epic High Five posted:
Perhaps I've misunderstood the position I'm arguing against. If the argument is "voting is fine and good, but also not enough," then I have no issue. That's largely how I see things too. I'm specifically criticizing the implication that we shouldn't vote for Dems, or deliberately withhold votes, because they're ineffective. I don't know if that mentality was one of the many, many deciding factors in 2016, but I do know it was an idea expressed pretty commonly in 2016. And whether they got their way through their advocacy, or just by coincidence, they did get their way in 2016 and, as I've outlined, it sucked. It's a lovely mentality. People currently aren't openly standing by that mentality in this thread, but I'm criticizing posts that seem to implicitly be supporting it.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Step 1 would be "literally anything, even one single thing. Do anything except absolutely nothing at all." If Biden tries that, we can go from there such as...? the house passed a bill, the senate could send it to his desk, but there are at least two assholes holding it up. i'm sure biden would love to hear how he could fix that
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Step 1 would be "literally anything, even one single thing. Do anything except absolutely nothing at all." If Biden tries that, we can go from there I'm gonna try this logic at my next performance review I'll tell my director "oh you're not happy that I haven't produced anything in two years? Describe the perfect course of action for accomplishing every wild wish then. Checkmate" Then I'll smugly it in my office until building security comes to throw me out
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think this is probably true but mostly because it's a factor in the Senate, which at least becomes bloodgargling maniacs less quickly than the House. It is also somewhat harder to gerrymander a state. What would be interesting at some point is if they start talking about reorganizing state borders... but I'm not even sure what the process for that would be, leaving aside trivial things like "a surveying error in 1827 means that technically these fifty yards of land rest in both State X and State Y, so we're rectifying that officially by act of both legislatures." You need the consent of Congress and of all states involved to change state borders. In theory you could gerrymander the Senate by carving up a state into several states in such a way that they were reliable voters, but it would be very hard to do that in a way the original state would agree is in its best interest. Then again, Florida did just punch itself in the dick for much dumber reasons
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Then again, Florida did just punch itself in the dock for much dumber reasons Trust me, the yacht tourism industry is doing just fine.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:what does "try" mean in this context. hold joe manchin at gunpoint? I mean, do anything. But you're trying to shift the argument. Lets bring you back: goethe.cx posted:lol at this thread full of posters who spent all of 2020 loudly insisting they would never vote for joe biden, now getting mad at joe biden for not doing something they didn't even believe he'd do in the first place You need to specify a poster to argue with, and then explain why it's inconsistent to get mad at him for being exactly the sort of poo poo they were mad at him about. You can't, so now you're trying to make an argument that they shouldn't be mad because he's not culpable. It's bad argument, but it's a different one from where you started. And where you started was a bad post. haveblue posted:One of you change your title please The RJ fandom contains multitudes, and most of those multitudes are bad. Me included.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think this is probably true but mostly because it's a factor in the Senate, which at least becomes bloodgargling maniacs less quickly than the House. It is also somewhat harder to gerrymander a state. What would be interesting at some point is if they start talking about reorganizing state borders... but I'm not even sure what the process for that would be, leaving aside trivial things like "a surveying error in 1827 means that technically these fifty yards of land rest in both State X and State Y, so we're rectifying that officially by act of both legislatures." You don't need to gerrymander the senate, it's naturally going to favor small states, and there are more small red states than there are blue states. And because they're so red, and so hostile to the other side, that they naturally get redder and redder over time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why do you think they would do that? They don't receive their money from any outside source, they have a lifetime appointment, and they are already wealthy. Maybe they are just really empathetic to their friends. But, it seems like people who are extremely proud and ideologues would love for a backlash that doesn't impact them because they can show how they are resisting the mob and doing the right thing. It isn't "my plan" you dingdong, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a philosophical point. Here, let me reframe it in an example a goon can understand: Mom wants you to take out the trash, but you wantto keep playing Elden Ring. You and Mom now have choices: Mom can ask you to take out the trash. You would rather keep playing, but you can stop playing if getting along with Mom is more important to you than the game. Otherwise, you can say no, because you are willing to make Mom unhappy. If you say no, Mom can either threaten to not make you chicken tendies for dinner, or she can concede because she is not willing to deprive you of food to compel you to take out the trash even though you taking out the trash is what she wants. If she chooses the former, you must then decide between continuing to play Elden Ring(what you want) and the price Mom demands(forgoing tendies). If you choose to continue to play, it is true by simple deduction that you have determined you would rather continue playing than receive tendies Mom must then either raise the stakes or fold. There's no actual physical constraints up to the point of Mom threatening you with a gun and you deciding you would rather die than voluntarily stop playing to take out the trash, at which point if Mom decides to kill you, you can no longer negotiate because you are dead "But Mom wouldn't shoot me because I won't stop playing Elden Ring to take out the trash!!! Your example is wrong!!!" No, it isn't. It just means at some point of escalation either you or Mom would concede because eventually one of you would reach a point where the cost to get what you want outweighs the value of it to you. You can certainly think Mom's an unreasonable bitch for threatening your tendies as you sulk away from the xbox, but if you tell yourself it was actually impossible to disobey Mom, you are telling yourself a lie Political rules are not laws of nature. Pretending Manchin, Republicans, the court, whoever are invincible and immovable as people have been ITT and never make calculations regarding the costs of their own wants is just rationalizing concession. Maybe it's a reasonable calculation and maybe it isn't, but it is still a calculation of interest and not a fact derived from physics What we do know for sure is this: What has been done in the aggregate thus far to preserve Roe has failed, so the options now are to either find what it does take to preserve it and do it, or allow Roe to be dismantled because you would rather Roe be dismantled than escalate your demands further
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm not talking to a bloc, I'm talking to the people criticizing the concept of "voting harder". I think if they sincerely believed Susan Sarandon or the pernicious bernie bros hold the Lathe of Heaven and constitute a force so powerful that they can decide who wins an election, they'd be trying to get them on their side. It's something that gets a lot of airtime but they got everything they asked for from progressives, they can own their losses or fail to and keep losing. Hillary got more votes than Trump, people voted harder for her than him! But who becomes President and who gets put on the court or what the court does isn't anything anybody posting in this thread actually has any input on.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:The reason to vote for them is that they are not Republicans. That is the only reason you are ever going to get as long as the GOP exists in its current state. Much like the French with Macron, not being a far right lunatic is about all you will get when the other side wants to burn things to the ground. Again, like in France, a lot of people here seem to be up for burning things to the ground, so those people should be glad, became more decisions like the one we just got are about as good as you are going to get short of an actual hot civil war. Clearly then the government does not have to carry out the popular will, and indeed as the data shows it does not.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm not talking to a bloc, I'm talking to the people criticizing the concept of "voting harder". I'm openly standing by it. Voting for democrats is actively harmful to the well-being of people, because it both A) gives legitimacy to the entire broken system and (accepting the framework of that system) B) lets the party continue to exist as a corrupt and worthless black hole of leftward political ambition. The shallowest realistic view here is that we'd be better off with nobody voting for democrats, and instead supporting other parties. One of them that had candidates actually follow through with promises would replace the existing democrat party a-la whig replacement. The actual answer is we'd be better off with nobody voting and instead just treating the existing government of the US as illegitimate and implementing an entirely different and actually democratic system of government. The illusion that voting is meaningful, especially in national elections, needs to be broken. Your vote didn't matter in 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, and it won't in 2022/24/etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Having people like Sinema and Manchin in the party has more knock-on effects than I think is recognized. It creates the image that the Dem coalition is fractured, because they are, and the media focuses on that aspect in every political fight, which gives more credence to being tepid in fights about abortion, tax cuts, etc. I do think it would be advantageous in the mid to long term to kick them out of the caucus and let them find their own way. Their presence is extremely demoralizing. The larger issue is the current make up of the Democratic coalition makes no sense, and hasn't for some time. I think we're in need of some kind of realignment, but I don't know what that looks like.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Kanos posted:That's how the country is. Half the states in the U.S. are pretty much irrevocably conservative for the foreseeable future and will absolutely never elect anyone who is not a conservative or can do an extremely convincing cosplay as a conservative. Simply having a D by your name is enough to put you somewhere between "tarred and feathered" and "completely ignored" at the ballot box in half the states in the union, nevermind espousing progressive policies like "maybe gay people and women should have equal rights". If you're working from the assumption that more than half the country's political divisions are dominated by fundamentally conservative voters who are deeply opposed to abortion, then the voters are getting exactly what they want right now. Outside of "convince the entire US military that civilian leadership is a lovely tradition that should be overturned, and also that they really love abortion and should make that a key policy point in their new military dictatorship", I'm not really sure what kind of solution can really be expected in a situation like that. TheIncredulousHulk posted:The idea that someone will never cooperate with you is absurd A large-scale general strike across the entire US would be an extremely historic (and extremely disruptive) event. There hasn't been anything even in the same league as that since the immediate aftermath of WWII. And of course, it's also something well beyond the ability of Pelosi and Schumer to organize. Tossing that out there as something that "national Democrats" could do if they really wanted to, and using that to imply that their failure to do so is evidence that they don't really care about abortion, is frankly ridiculous. They can't even turn out people to vote, you think they're gonna be able to get tens of millions of people to go out there and risk their jobs for the sake of shutting down much of the national economy? Professor Beetus posted:I feel like he should be making a more forceful statement now, and then when it falls apart inevitably due to dysfunctional lovely congress we have, he can at least point to that and say "look, I told them we need this to happen and x y z senators have made it impossible." Before specifically making a public declaration that the filibuster needs to be destroyed, it makes sense to take a bit of time and check with Congress to see how many votes there actually are for passing your law, with or without the filibuster. Of course, there's no way there's even 51 votes for it, let alone 60. But "knowing what the gently caress you're even talking about" still occasionally has its merits, y'know. And it makes sense to hold off on publicly writing Collins and Murkowski off long enough to give them an opportunity to embarrass themselves by admitting it on their own. Especially Murkowski, who's up for reelection this year and is already facing a rough primary where both Trump and the Alaska Republican Party have openly endorsed a challenger against her. As someone who's been primaried before, only to win the general anyway by running as a write-in candidate, she should be well aware of the value of crossover votes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:We were at an inflection point. The government carried out the will of the people as it were at the time. Which people? Trump lost the popular vote Could you define what you mean by popular will, who are "the people" and how are you determining what their will is? It obviously isn't by majority vote because the person with the majority of votes lost in 2016
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:such as...? the house passed a bill, the senate could send it to his desk, but there are at least two assholes holding it up. i'm sure biden would love to hear how he could fix that Offer them huge federal contracts in their states to vote in favor of legislation. Investigate Manchin, as was suggested on the last page. Kick them out of the caucus. Do whatever black magic McConnell does to keep republicans so tightly in line. I could keep going, but we both know there is no answer that would satisfy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Loving was actually decided in opposition of the will of the people. Miscegenation was majority unpopular for decades after.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
It's _very_ funny that a yokel senator from a completely irrelevant state has essentially run the Democratic agenda for the last year and a half, and no one can come up with a single idea to stop that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
I've voted blue, in every election, every year my entire life. I'm rewarded with a president who doesn't give a poo poo about climate change, and who thinks the filibuster is more important than women's health. The Dem governor of Minnesota, the state where George Floyd was murdered, opposes police reform and helped elect a bunch of conservatives to the Minneapolis city council, who are rolling back environmental, transit, and density plans. I recognize that continuing to vote blue is the best of the available options, but gently caress, guys, I'm only human. I can only eat so much poo poo before I walk away from the table. I don't think I can stomach voting for these clowns any longer. I'm just done with this party.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Offer them huge federal contracts in their states to vote in favor of legislation. Investigate Manchin, as was suggested on the last page. Kick them out of the caucus. Do whatever black magic McConnell does to keep republicans so tightly in line. I could keep going, but we both know there is no answer that would satisfy. bribes are a good idea, but i don't think that gets manchin on board. voting for abortion is too politically toxic in WV him to survive re-election and he really wants to be re-elected. investigating him could very easily backfire. kicking them out would hand chamber control to republicans, which would be bad because things like confirming judges are still important. i suppose you could say "try anyway," but the attempt would likely put us in a worse position without accomplishing anything. also, mcconnell doesn't have as much control as it seems. under trump, all they did was pass tax cuts and confirm chuds to the judiciary; those are things that all republicans believe in doing. the one thing they tried that was more controversial--repealing the ACA--failed embarrassingly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I'm openly standing by it. Voting for democrats is actively harmful to the well-being of people, because it both A) gives legitimacy to the entire broken system and (accepting the framework of that system) B) lets the party continue to exist as a corrupt and worthless black hole of leftward political ambition. As someone with a womb who woke up this morning to discover their bodily autonomy is in more question than usual -- your stance stinks of privilege. It's really easy when it's not your body on the line to tell people to give up, stop participating, and just let bad things happen to them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:bribes are a good idea, but i don't think that gets manchin on board. voting for abortion is too politically toxic in WV him to survive re-election and he really wants to be re-elected. investigating him could very easily backfire. kicking them out would hand chamber control to republicans, which would be bad because things like confirming judges are still important. i suppose you could say "try anyway," but the attempt might put us in a worse position. I would absolutely say try anyway, because I expect you to shoot down any suggestions anyways. Not to mention not trying doesn't seem to be working either!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:It's _very_ funny that a yokel senator from a completely irrelevant state has essentially run the Democratic agenda for the last year and a half, and no one can come up with a single idea to stop that. I don't find that funny but it IS what the US government was explicitly set up to allow for.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think if they sincerely believed Susan Sarandon or the pernicious bernie bros hold the Lathe of Heaven and constitute a force so powerful that they can decide who wins an election, they'd be trying to get them on their side. Ehhh...I bet a lot of what you're talking about is plenty sincere. "We lost because of the enemy within" is always going to be tempting rhetoric to believe, whether or not it involves an accurate description of a loss or of an enemy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Grooglon posted:As someone with a womb who woke up this morning to discover their bodily autonomy is in more question than usual -- your stance stinks of privilege. It's really easy when it's not your body on the line to tell people to give up, stop participating, and just let bad things happen to them. Nowhere in my post do I say anything about "giving up" or "just let[ting] bad things happen". My stance has nothing to do with privilege. There are much, much more useful things you can do on a daily basis than voting. In fact, I'd say if you view voting as even fairly important in the scheme of things you can do, you're still blinded by  . Like I'm not even talking about actual impactful things you can do (cross-state transportation, escort or otherwise assist at clinics, direct protest at small group events or in public directly against relevant parties, similar direct actions), or the medium tier useful (popular regulated protest, door to door policy campaigning), but literally the laziest $5 donation to the abortion assistance fund of your choice is a million times more impactful than the vote you cast for any national election. Local elections are in a weird place where depending on where you live it may still be a little impactful, but I promise showing up at your local political seat of power (statehouse, etc) for a protest this week will do more than any vote you've ever cast in your life.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I've voted blue, in every election, every year my entire life. I'm rewarded with a president who doesn't give a poo poo about climate change, and who thinks the filibuster is more important than women's health. The Dem governor of Minnesota, the state where George Floyd was murdered, opposes police reform and helped elect a bunch of conservatives to the Minneapolis city council, who are rolling back environmental, transit, and density plans. If You continue to do other things to try to improve things that is fine. If you are just taking your ball and going home then you've decided you don't care about misery and suffering because it makes you tired. And that is fine if you are giving up but it is just as right for the people, Democratic voters or not, to scorn you because you have decided that feeling bad is significant enough to stand by while people die. We are past the point where you can be on the sidelines. You are either fighting or you are surrendering. That doesn't mean you need to vote but you better be doing sonething more significant than posting on the internet. There are tons of local or internet groups who are making plans for what to do next. You can do something and that something is more important than nothing. Anything, anything is better than giving up.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Nowhere in my post do I say anything about "giving up" or "just let[ting] bad things happen". My stance has nothing to do with privilege. It does though. Voting matters for lots of people a lot of the time. If local and regional elections, state elections, don't matter and you're only focused on national ones, then congrats your privileged enogh to be largely insulated from the results of minor elections. quote:There are much, much more useful things you can do on a daily basis than voting. In fact, I'd say if you view voting as even fairly important in the scheme of things you can do, you're still blinded by Nobody is voting every day. One does not preclude the other.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which people? Trump lost the popular vote We don't award the presidency by popular vote, but support for or apathy towards repealing Roe v. Wade was pretty evident in the Senate results, which was voted for by "the people" in statewide races where gerrymandering is not a thing. The GOP got more votes for their Senate candidates, who would be the ones approving judges, than the Democrats did. They won the senate popular vote in 2016. It was not some perfect storm of a bunch of tiny states going red, making it seem like the public was in favor of this, but in reality they had 40% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I'm openly standing by it. Voting for democrats is actively harmful to the well-being of people, because it both A) gives legitimacy to the entire broken system and (accepting the framework of that system) B) lets the party continue to exist as a corrupt and worthless black hole of leftward political ambition. Except it's a rather bleak scenario that supposes a lot of concrete immediate suffering can lead to some nebulous better future. This mentally in 2016 definitely would lead to Roe v Wade being overturned today, before the political revolution comes. If it comes. If the winners of that revolution are somehow better than what we have. But yeah, I'll concede my point to you. We do have two options. Vote Dem or increase suffering until the people have no choice but to immanentize the eschaton.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
We know the GOP Senate is not if one mind on abortion. Why not make a Senate bill to protect abortion rights? It’s not about forcing Manchin to abolish the filibuster, it’s about forcing Murkowski and Collins to continue one. If we can’t get rid of the Democrat who acts like a Republican, we can at least disabuse ourselves of the notion that some select Republicans are Basically Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:We know the GOP Senate is not if one mind on abortion. Why not make a Senate bill to protect abortion rights? Who is "we" here?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Manager Hoyden posted:Who is "we" here? The American people, based on popular cultural narratives that politicians are complex individuals and not following a herd trend. You can blame John McCain for this poo poo, mostly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:46
|
|
Craptacular! posted:We know the GOP Senate is not if one mind on abortion. Why not make a Senate bill to protect abortion rights? There is already such a bill. It's been there for months.
|
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Grooglon posted:As someone with a womb who woke up this morning to discover their bodily autonomy is in more question than usual -- your stance stinks of privilege. It's really easy when it's not your body on the line to tell people to give up, stop participating, and just let bad things happen to them. As someone with functional senses who woke up this morning, your post reeks of privilege. Are you going to pick up shifts or donate your money so that our permanent underclass can take time off to vote? It's really easy when it's not your body on the line to tell people to start participating.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
WorkerThread posted:As someone with functional senses who woke up this morning, your post reeks of privilege. Are you going to pick up shifts or donate your money so that our permanent underclass can take time off to vote? It's really easy when it's not your body on the line to tell people to start participating. Yes? Many people in this thread do exactly that. Like poo poo I do extra shifts every year so co workers can vote and I know that isn't uncommon. I'm not sure what you think this own is but "would you donate your time or money to help people vote" is literally a common thing people do on voting day. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:05 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Offer them huge federal contracts in their states to vote in favor of legislation. Investigate Manchin, as was suggested on the last page. Kick them out of the caucus. Do whatever black magic McConnell does to keep republicans so tightly in line. I could keep going, but we both know there is no answer that would satisfy. McConnell's magic mostly just consisted of using his power as Majority Leader to prevent bills from coming to the floor if he didn't have an ironclad vote count, depriving Dems of the opportunity to embarrass him by flipping a couple of GOP votes against him. He actually had a pretty hard time getting stuff passed, even in Trump's first two years when he had a larger Senate majority than the Dems have now. To the extent that the GOP are staying in line, it's mostly because they're terrified of their base, not because of McConnell. The far right has been very active in attempting to primary GOP legislators seen as insufficiently conservative, and in replacing them with radicals who don't cooperate with leadership at all. It was especially bad in the House (where they managed to not only drive Boehner out of the Speakership but also knock McCarthy out of the running), but the Senate hasn't been unaffected either. The rank and file are pretty scared, and even party leadership has had to give in to the electoral results the far right has been managing to pull in. Craptacular! posted:We know the GOP Senate is not if one mind on abortion. Why not make a Senate bill to protect abortion rights? Schumer and the Dems say they're going to, and Collins and Murkowski have proposed their own as well. Now, the problem is that these two groups don't agree on what should be in that bill.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:We don't award the presidency by popular vote, but support for or apathy towards repealing Roe v. Wade was pretty evident in the Senate results, which was voted for by "the people" in statewide races where gerrymandering is not a thing. The GOP got more votes for their Senate candidates, who would be the ones approving judges, than the Democrats did. They won the senate popular vote in 2016. It was not some perfect storm of a bunch of tiny states going red, making it seem like the public was in favor of this, but in reality they had 40% of the vote. The Senate popular popular vote in 2016 was slanted massively toward Democrats by about ten million votes and they won about a third of the elections held. But that's just because Class 3 has a handful of blue states including NY and California along with a bunch of small red states and medium-sized swing states. It's not really easy to compare popular vote vs seats in Senate elections since a third of states aren't voting in a given year and the Senate is deliberately not proportional to population. Did you mean to make some statements about the whole composition of the Senate as of that election, like the combined total of 2012, 2014, and 2016? Though Dems actually flipped two seats in 2016, even if they didn't get the majority: with a Republican VP they would have had to pick up five to establish Democratic control. Ousting Republican incumbents in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Missouri would have taken a few more percent of the vote. Main Paineframe posted:McConnell's magic mostly just consisted of using his power as Majority Leader to prevent bills from coming to the floor if he didn't have an ironclad vote count, depriving Dems of the opportunity to embarrass him by flipping a couple of GOP votes against him. He actually had a pretty hard time getting stuff passed, even in Trump's first two years when he had a larger Senate majority than the Dems have now. Edit: Also this. Schumer did "McConnell's magic" when Republicans proposed stuff like impeaching Biden on day one or a law that the government must repeal three regulations for every new one it creates. Namely, he didn't even bring them to a vote. It's a simple spell, but only really works when you want to stop things from passing. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 23:14 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yes? Many people in this thread do exactly that. Like poo poo I do extra shifts every year so co workers can vote and I know that isn't uncommon. Oh so you've solved the problem, then. That's actually great news. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I feel like he should be making a more forceful statement now, and then when it falls apart inevitably due to dysfunctional lovely congress we have, he can at least point to that and say "look, I told them we need this to happen and x y z senators have made it impossible." nine-gear crow posted:Joe Manchin doesn’t quite strike me as the type to be embarrassed or cowed into submission by people finding out about his dirty dealings or how much money he’s making or from where. Nor would anyone who votes for him care. I don't think the point they are getting at is that anything he does is illegal, or that an investigation would find anything new. I think the point is that oppressors should not be allowed to live comfortable lives, and as much as possible, we should afflict them so that they are uncomfortable, to the point where they cease their oppression. In a world where people can die from this ruling, it is an injustice that such a person should get a decent night's sleep, or be able to go to a grocer without being yelled at, or eat a meal without protest. As pointed out - this might not actually fix things, but it has three benefits: 1) The first is that it signals that people are serious about resisting this ruling, which will inspire people to support and give them an example to follow. This would help deal with the demoralization we see. 2) Even if it doesn't work, opposing oppressors is a moral good and the person who does it will receive ajr. 3) If you, for some reason, care about Manchin's immortal soul and our duty to our neighbors, then it's morally obligatory to stop him from oppressing. See the hadith: Anas posted:Allah's Apostle said, "Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, "O Allah's Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?" The Prophet said, "By preventing him from oppressing others." I would even add that this should extend to people that associate with him. There is a great pairing of a hadith and story about the sheikh Ahmed ibn Hanbal (not a huge fan myself - I'm Shafi'i, but the story is great!). There's a sahih hadith that goes: Ka’b ibn ‘Ujrah posted:The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, rulers will come after me and whoever enters their abode, affirms their lies, and supports their oppression, they are not part of me and I am not part of them; they will have no presence at the Fountain. Whoever does not enter their abode, does not support their oppression, and does not affirm their lies, he is part of me and I am part of him; he will be present at the Fountain.” So the story goes that Ahmed ibn Hanbal - who was arrested during the Mihna, an inquisition run by what we could consider "rationalists" now - was in jail, and the prison guard came up to him to talk about this hadith. And their conversation went: quote:Prison Guard: Oh Father of Abdullah, is the hadith narrated concerning oppression and the helpers of oppressors sahih?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Progressives are by far the most loyal dissenting bloc in this country, it's why they're so irrelevant. "Loyal" is doing a whole lot of unjustified work here. The most progressive forum on this board was giving each other asspats for pledging NOT to vote for the president--you can still see the gangtags today. You might've been one of them!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Abortion is a huge money saver and productivity booster for employers. It's massively cheaper than paying for an entire birth and taking time off of work, that's why every major employer healthcare plan covers it and insurers love it. Capital wouldn't let something with no upside for them get this far and both parties are serving capital, so the court will likely end up reaffirming Roe instead of repealing it - and possibly even strengthening it by having abortions covered by the state to get it off the expense books of capital.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 23:14
|
|
