|
It's frustrating to see dumb absolutism lead to counterproductive doomerism. The Democrats have failed. Voting for more Democrats is the only way to fix this. Both statements are true. It's not emotionally satisfying, and it's not easy, but it's obviously true. Has Pelosi campaigned for an anti-choice candidate? That's lovely. Have the Democrats failed to expand the supreme court because some of them think playing nice is more important than their policy goals? gently caress those guys. Is anything going to get better if the Democrats have even less power? No. Things will get significantly worse. The Democrats will not grow spines in adversity. They'll perfect their message, sure. They'll say exactly what we want them to say. But the next time they've got a tenuous grip in power, they'll be just as likely drop the ball again. The only conceivable fix is to put even more Democrats in power, to the point that the whole party isn't dependent on absolute consensus and their most cautious and dumbass fringes don't have veto power. So yeah, we're all feeling really bad about how lovely the Democrats are, but they're also the only conceivable way to begin to fix any of this.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Lemming posted:One specific reason why the court is 6-3 instead of 5-4 is because Ginsburg was more interested in personally being a Supreme Court Justice forever instead of being replaced by someone younger who would be just as interested in ruling to protect abortion. This pretty perfectly comports with the argument that Democrats are more interested in their own personal power than doing anything to actually protect abortion I thought Ginsberg stayed on because she wanted her replacement to be appointed by Hillary. And when that didn't work out, she was trapped, knowing that Trump would get to choose the nom if she left (which he did anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 17:58
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I thought Ginsberg stayed on because she wanted her replacement to be appointed by Hillary. And when that didn't work out, she was trapped, knowing that Trump would get to choose the nom if she left (which he did anyway). Wow, that sounds like the really loving stupid and selfish reasoning of a child, and not a decision that someone who was more interested in protecting human rights than her own personal seat at the court for the last few years of her life would make
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Abortion is banned in Sweden after 18 weeks. Most European countries actually have fairly strict restrictions on abortion. "It permits abortion on the request of the pregnant woman until the 18th week, and thereafter only in cases of severe indications of medical risk. After the 18th week, abortions can only be performed after an evaluation by the National Board of Health and Welfare." European countries on average will yeet out a baby at any point if it is a severe risk to the mother.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Democrats are conservatives*, I hope this explains why some people are seeing it worthy to blame Democrats. "Why not focus on the people actually directly acting instead of literally anyone else" being met with "but the Democrats" is exactly what I loving mean. If you just default to 'well Republicans are evil' can't blame a scorpion for stinging' and instead are Iinterested in tearing down not the Denocratic establishments but people largely on the same page as you then you are doing what they want. Same thing goes for the people blaming third party voters or whatever. You know who is most responsible for this? The people actually doing it. Trying to blame Stein voters or whatever is just adding more division. gently caress the Democratic establishment but gently caress the *actual people doing things more*
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It's frustrating to see dumb absolutism lead to counterproductive doomerism. The Democrats have failed. Voting for more Democrats is the only way to fix this. Both statements are true. It's not emotionally satisfying, and it's not easy, but it's obviously true. Has Pelosi campaigned for an anti-choice candidate? That's lovely. Have the Democrats failed to expand the supreme court because some of them think playing nice is more important than their policy goals? gently caress those guys. Is anything going to get better if the Democrats have even less power? No. Things will get significantly worse. The Democrats will not grow spines in adversity. They'll perfect their message, sure. They'll say exactly what we want them to say. But the next time they've got a tenuous grip in power, they'll be just as likely drop the ball again. Putting Democrats in charge is necessary, but not sufficient. Putting Democrats who are actually interested in protecting and expanding rights is necessary and sufficient. That's why whatever path is, it will need to involve removing the establishment Democrats from power. They are one of the many obstacles in the way. Putting more Democrats in power who won't vote to protect and expand rights does gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Putting Democrats in charge is necessary, but not sufficient. Putting Democrats who are actually interested in protecting and expanding rights is necessary and sufficient. That's why whatever path is, it will need to involve removing the establishment Democrats from power. They are one of the many obstacles in the way. Putting more Democrats in power who won't vote to protect and expand rights does gently caress all. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:"It permits abortion on the request of the pregnant woman until the 18th week, and thereafter only in cases of severe indications of medical risk. After the 18th week, abortions can only be performed after an evaluation by the National Board of Health and Welfare." European countries on average will yeet out a baby at any point if it is a severe risk to the mother. Abortion isn't a right if you can only get it when your other option is dying. Abortion is a right in Sweden until 18 weeks. After that, you do not have a choice unless you are at a high risk of dying. You have to get a federal government agency to approve your individual abortion and provide proof that having the child will likely kill you in order to get an abortion once the second hand clicks over to 18 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:Is this post from 20 years ago? You're telling an end-stage cancer patient that he should have eaten more salads. Unless something incredibly drastic happens really loving fast, that dude is going to die. No poo poo. The drastic thing that needs to happen is for Democrats to actually support pro-choice candidates who will protect and codify abortion rights. Pointing out that the Democratic establishment isn't interested in doing this is just recognizing the reality of the situation. There is nothing any of us can actually do to stop it, because the Democratic establishment will not let that happen. The things we can focus on that will actually help in the short term is helping organizations that will provide aid to women to travel and get safe abortions where they can. Voting for the Democrats who will do nothing (and to be clear, this is not all Democrats. The problem is that, like with Cuellar, the establishment will step in and stop anyone who is sincerely interested in taking action on the situation) will not help
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:u dont have to work with democrats u can work against conservatives, hth Judging by the way that people are highlighting it, that would mean that some folks are working against the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
Lemming posted:No poo poo. The drastic thing that needs to happen is for Democrats to actually support pro-choice candidates who will protect and codify abortion rights. Pointing out that the Democratic establishment isn't interested in doing this is just recognizing the reality of the situation. There is nothing any of us can actually do to stop it, because the Democratic establishment will not let that happen. The things we can focus on that will actually help in the short term is helping organizations that will provide aid to women to travel and get safe abortions where they can. Voting for the Democrats who will do nothing (and to be clear, this is not all Democrats. The problem is that, like with Cuellar, the establishment will step in and stop anyone who is sincerely interested in taking action on the situation) will not help i mean sure, yeah, but also i don't think one single dem is offsetting the entire gop
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Judging by the way that people are highlighting it, that would mean that some folks are working against the Democrats. Well, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Putting Democrats in charge is necessary, but not sufficient. Putting Democrats who are actually interested in protecting and expanding rights is necessary and sufficient. That's why whatever path is, it will need to involve removing the establishment Democrats from power. They are one of the many obstacles in the way. Putting more Democrats in power who won't vote to protect and expand rights does gently caress all. Even the lovely current leadership would pass a law protecting abortion rights if they had the votes for it. They're not secretly anti-choice, even if they obviously aren't fighting for it as hard as they should. There's something wrong with how people naturally react to this situation. I also feel more anger towards the Democrats for loving up, but it's pretty easy to see that the real issue is how many Republicans there are. It's pretty easy to imagine a world where the Democrats are the same mix of lovely and okay that they are right now, but there are fewer Republicans, and it's a much better world. I can also imagine a world where there are only good to okay Democrats, with the same number of Republicans, and it's better than what we have, but still really terrifyingly tenuous. In other words, things would be a lot better with more Democrats, and only a bit better with better Democrats. This is because, contrary to how our emotions actually work, it is the Republicans that are the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Well, yes. I know but that did not seem to be the person's who I was quoting point. Also as regards the point immediately above me. It is easier to win when you can rely upon having a shared ethos through your political movement without having to rely continuously upon the good graces of people whose only action is to disagree with you opponents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Judging by the way that people are highlighting it, that would mean that some folks are working against the Democrats. Speaking as a red state socialist, and one in one of the boring red states and not one of the culture war flashpoint ones even, sometimes working against conservatives as a primary political philosophy means working against Dems yes. Ideally they'd stop running them but in politics everybody has their own agendas they're working toward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
yelling about what certain individual dems are doing is kinda secondary to the core rot that is 100,000,000 conservative voters actively trying to enforce their will on the country
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It's frustrating to see dumb absolutism lead to counterproductive doomerism. The Democrats have failed. Voting for more Democrats is the only way to fix this. Both statements are true. It's not emotionally satisfying, and it's not easy, but it's obviously true. Has Pelosi campaigned for an anti-choice candidate? That's lovely. Have the Democrats failed to expand the supreme court because some of them think playing nice is more important than their policy goals? gently caress those guys. Is anything going to get better if the Democrats have even less power? No. Things will get significantly worse. The Democrats will not grow spines in adversity. They'll perfect their message, sure. They'll say exactly what we want them to say. But the next time they've got a tenuous grip in power, they'll be just as likely drop the ball again. The Democrats had strong majorities or supermajorities in Congress during the following years: 1975-1981, 1989-1995, and 2010-2011. (House breakdowns here, Senate breakdowns here) During that entire stretch of time, a vast majority of Americans supported keeping abortion legal in some or all circumstances:  Yet they did not take those opportunities to codify Roe into law. Indeed, when he came into office in 2009, Obama famously outright said it was "not the highest legislative priority.” Given Pelosi et al's continued support for anti-choice Blue Dogs like Henry Cuellar, I don't see why anyone should be convinced that they're serious about fighting for women's reproductive rights at this point. "We need to elect more progressive, pro-choice Dems" isn't really a viable solution if the party leadership is not just uninterested in, but outright resistant to the notion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I thought Ginsberg stayed on because she wanted her replacement to be appointed by Hillary. And when that didn't work out, she was trapped, knowing that Trump would get to choose the nom if she left (which he did anyway). She had 8 years of an Obama administration to retire and not worry about who would replace her. This is why I'll never understand people who lionize her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yelling about what certain individual dems are doing is kinda secondary to the core rot that is 100,000,000 conservative voters actively trying to enforce their will on the country But that is the thing, they have all been allowed to by the way that power has been weilded inside of the nation state since its gosh darn inception. The only option is to challenge that and to break it. And for that you need both disagreement on the ground and those who are possessed of some level of power in the current system. The latter failing it has fallen entirely upon the labouring classes to be the heart of a heartless world
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yelling about what certain individual dems are doing is kinda secondary to the core rot that is 100,000,000 conservative voters actively trying to enforce their will on the country Yeah, and what exactly do you propose to do about that? This is out of anyone’s hands but their own. Focus elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats had strong majorities or supermajorities in Congress during the following years: 1974-1981, 1988-1995, and 2010-2011. (House breakdowns here, Senate breakdowns here) During that entire stretch of time, a vast majority of Americans supported keeping abortion legal in some or all circumstances: That doesn't really matter with the current court. The final draft lays out a bunch of arguments for fetal personhood and only Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that he didn't agree with it. There's at least 5 votes to strike down a federal law guaranteeing abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats had strong majorities or supermajorities in Congress during the following years: 1974-1981, 1988-1995, and 2010-2011. (House breakdowns here, Senate breakdowns here) During that entire stretch of time, a vast majority of Americans supported keeping abortion legal in some or all circumstances: If your point is that Democrats aren't great at tactics and managing risk, I'd agree without reservation. If your point is that Democrats are secretly anti-choice I don't think you've proven that point. Also I like that I've made two posts in this lovely thread and gotten a gross avatar. Lovely folks around here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
The same court that just overturned Roe v. Wade would be more than happy to rule any law codifying Roe v. Wade as unconstitutional. "Vote" isn't an answer when the leadership and vast majority of the membership of the elected Democratic Party have shown themselves completely unwilling to pursue any of the structural reforms that will be needed to protect a woman's right to an abortion moving in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That doesn't really matter with the current court. The final draft lays out a bunch of arguments for fetal personhood and only Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that he didn't agree with it. There's at least 5 votes to strike down a federal law guaranteeing abortion. Then make them strike it down. The fact that SCOTUS would strike such a law down does not excuse inaction by the Democratic party leadership. e: Eiba posted:I think the false confidence in Roe v Wade is obviously a factor there. The Democrats thought they had won and the issue was settled so they didn't want to draw attention to it. I don't think that the Dems in Congress or the WH are anti-choice, for the most part. I do think - and the history and stats I posted seem to back me up - that abortion rights have been what Obama outright said they were: "not the highest legislative priority." I think you're correct that false confidence in Roe as settled law was a factor here, but I also think that the Dems are going to have to do a lot more than just say "vote for us, we'll codify Roe this time, we swear, scout's honor" if they want to energize pro-choice voters to turn out for them. Given the at best lackluster response we've seen from the likes of Biden and Pelosi today, I think they're every bit as complacent about pro-choice voters turning out for them in November as they were in Roe being settled law. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware this forum is primarily not democrats and is almost completely people entirely disbelieving of the possibility dems even being fixable. I don't know why people who I know know better are fixated on getting water out of that stone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Then make them strike it down. The fact that SCOTUS would strike such a law down does not excuse inaction by the Democratic party leadership. They should, but I thought your post was about actual long-term solutions. The only "silver lining" is that the majority opinion seems to be arguing that personhood doesn't start at conception, they think the Mississippi rule of 15 weeks is "based on the latest science" and not "an arbitrary period of time" like Roe and Casey. That indicates that Alito's response to a scenario challenging a federal law codifying a right to abortion (and assuming the other 4 Justices who didn't explicitly say they disagreed with him go along) would be: - Abortion banned everywhere after 15 weeks. - States decide what happens before 15 weeks. And not a total ban.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yet they did not take those opportunities to codify Roe into law. Indeed, when he came into office in 2009, Obama famously outright said it was "not the highest legislative priority.” Given Pelosi et al's continued support for anti-choice Blue Dogs like Henry Cuellar, I don't see why anyone should be convinced that they're serious about fighting for women's reproductive rights at this point. "We need to elect more progressive, pro-choice Dems" isn't really a viable solution if the party leadership is not just uninterested in, but outright resistant to the notion. I think on some level, the Democrats were not expecting that the courts would reverse their own decisions. Roe v Wade wasn't codified into law, but neither have marriage equality rights or even a prohibition on discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. I wonder what other rights have been established only based on SCOTUS rulings. The Democrats have been leaning way too hard on the assumption that rights granted by SCOTUS will be kept, that the SCOTUS was their ally, and now the SCOTUS needs to be treated like an enemy. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yeah, and what exactly do you propose to do about that? This is out of anyone’s hands but their own. Focus elsewhere. I mean that is the problem. No it isn't. They are human beings. Going 'well we can't win so might as well yell at other people' is silly. The fact that so many people have adopted the 'eh, can't change a thing' mindset only when it comes to Republicans is ridiculous. Any path forward is going to be meaningless without that change
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
yeah scotus was saying it was 'settled law' right up until they weren't
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They should, but I thought your post was about actual long-term solutions. It wasn't; it was a response to the argument that the only solution going forward is to elect more Democrats. If you want actual long-term solutions, I think uPen already said it pretty well: direct action. Mass strikes, mass walkouts, mass protests. Grind the economy to a halt, retake power for the majority. ImpAtom posted:I mean that is the problem. No it isn't. They are human beings. Going 'well we can't win so might as well yell at other people' is silly. So how do you propose we make such a change happen with regard to the Democratic Party leadership? How do we force them to make protecting abortion rights a legislative priority? Because voting for pro-choice candidates like Cisneros over anti-choice ones like Cuellar does not seem to be viable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Eiba posted:It's frustrating to see dumb absolutism lead to counterproductive doomerism. The Democrats have failed. Voting for more Democrats is the only way to fix this. Both statements are true. It's not emotionally satisfying, and it's not easy, but it's obviously true. Has Pelosi campaigned for an anti-choice candidate? That's lovely. Have the Democrats failed to expand the supreme court because some of them think playing nice is more important than their policy goals? gently caress those guys. Is anything going to get better if the Democrats have even less power? No. Things will get significantly worse. The Democrats will not grow spines in adversity. They'll perfect their message, sure. They'll say exactly what we want them to say. But the next time they've got a tenuous grip in power, they'll be just as likely drop the ball again. Yeah but you're describing taking over the party, not voting back in the current parts of it in power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think that the Dems in Congress or the WH are anti-choice, for the most part. I do think - and the history and stats I posted seem to back me up - that abortion rights have been what Obama outright said they were: "not the highest legislative priority." I think you're correct that false confidence in Roe as settled law was a factor here, but I also think that the Dems are going to have to do a lot more than just say "vote for us, we'll codify Roe this time, we swear, scout's honor" if they want to energize pro-choice voters to turn out for them. I think there's a difference between "gently caress the Democrats" and "The Democrats have to do better." They do have to do better. My arguments have only been against the idea that the Democrats have been useless therefore they will always be useless and therefore they aren't the solution somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:As far as I'm aware this forum is primarily not democrats and is almost completely people entirely disbelieving of the possibility dems even being fixable. I don't know why people who I know know better are fixated on getting water out of that stone. I mean you might be right but the forum is literally labelled "Debate and Discussion" and I imagine for a bunch of people here the idea is to discuss things to find solutions. Cause the alternatives are sticking our heads in the sand, or violence, neither of which are good. Defeatism and doomerism will constantly rear their heads because yeah, things suck and not everyone is in the mental state to resist despair. But those of us that can need to keep talking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
As requested, the Dems are doing something: https://twitter.com/FarnoushAmiri/status/1540370901803433984
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I mean that is the problem. No it isn't. They are human beings. Going 'well we can't win so might as well yell at other people' is silly. They are asking people, to show a little bit of disdain for the democrats if they have lied to you, generic you here not your good self, repeatedly about their commitment to health and bodily autonomy. Getting Republicans in power to change their PoV is a losing proposition because they are fundamentally opposed to human dignity. It is hoped that the same may not be true of Democrats in power. Alongside that, the better option would be to activate people who do not vote, not to demand change from those that do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
B B posted:As requested, the Dems are doing something: Deranged, something you'd see in a movie montage setting up why the movie itself is set in some kind of post-apocalypse or dystopia
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It wasn't; it was a response to the argument that the only solution going forward is to elect more Democrats. If you want actual long-term solutions, I think uPen already said it pretty well: direct action. Mass strikes, mass walkouts, mass protests. Grind the economy to a halt, retake power for the majority. To be 100% honest I'm not sure how this statement follows from what I said, I'm sorry. If you want to know what I think is a path forward for the Democrats it involves actively building a stronger base of actual progressives, even if that is difficult. But unfortunately that takes time and hosed if I have any quicker solutions
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:I mean you might be right but the forum is literally labelled "Debate and Discussion" and I imagine for a bunch of people here the idea is to discuss things to find solutions. Cause the alternatives are sticking our heads in the sand, or violence, neither of which are good. Defeatism and doomerism will constantly rear their heads because yeah, things suck and not everyone is in the mental state to resist despair. But those of us that can need to keep talking. Yeah I'm objecting particularly to the idea that there is nothing but 'head in sand or violence'
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
The way I'm viewing things, it seems like the Federal government is profoundly hosed in a way that isn't going to be fixed by another election, and maybe we're going to have to do a Western States Pact 2 to establish a federation of states which can collectively protect the rights of its citizens against a Federal government that is probably going to become more and more reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
B B posted:As requested, the Dems are doing something: I think this is supposed to be some stirring call to nonviolence and trust in the system, but in practice it just looks like they're going "lalalalalalala i can't hear you"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 18:39
|
|
