|
Discendo Vox posted:"Expressing frustration" is just your insistence that nothing is possible so discussion is meaningless. It contains nothing to discuss and demands, by language games Main Paineframe and others have already explained, that participants stop the discussion of specifics and accept their denial. This isn't new. You know that specific policies, and laws, and regulations, and courts, and elections exist. Others should not have to reestablish the existence of reality from first principles in order to have a discussion every time you want to demand that anything other than "death" is futile. I mean is there a legislative solution on a federal level that is feasible at the moment? If your argument is "no the death to America chat is a derail" and then when asked about "well what would you prefer to discuss that this counts as a detail" dive fully into "your saying discussion is meaningless". It seems a little odd, that's all. I even asked about what solutions you would have/want to propose. It's not asking for like an in depth policy proposal, but it'd be nice to hear what you think would be an effective solution!
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I mean is there a legislative solution on a federal level that is feasible at the moment? If your argument is "no the death to America chat is a derail" and then when asked about "well what would you prefer to discuss that this counts as a detail" dive fully into "your saying discussion is meaningless". It seems a little odd, that's all. I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. I'll say this much: for half a century, there was no "legislative solution on a federal level" for banning abortion, but anti-abortionists kept working at it anyway, and now look at all the progress they're making. The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. It's that, the original DTA discussion was provoked by something that has no apparent legislative solution, leading to a discussion on DTA instead of the prior thing which I see as a legitimate area for discussion. It also helped that there were still a lot of individually wealthy and politically powerful contributors to the Anti-abortion movement. And even then it isn't working all that well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm not sure what "federal legislative solution" and "death to America" have to do with each other, other than the fact that they're both incredibly vague phrases that can apparently be interpreted in all sorts of different ways. to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The effective solution is "keep fighting to build political support". There's no substitute. Have you considered the violent revolution which i will definitely be the vanguard of, and which is definitely coming (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:I don’t think black or indigenous people can pull anything useful from America’s national myth of origin but if you really want to try it then go ahead. They have their own myths of origin, their own stories about where they are that describe the material places in society from which they support themselves. We can find things in common with people who have different stories / myths than we do in order to point in the same direction towards expectation. Expectation here being the idea that in the future this can be a better world, that we can do something about our immoral society. The point here being it doesn’t matter if we use different words for expectation (eg socialism, the Kingdom of God, the shining city on the hill, etc) what matters is that we realize that even in difference we can point the same way to frame and shape a fight against power with action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"Death to america" is the opposite of any kind of discussion- it's a deliberately obtuse , uselessly overbroad slogan that obfuscates and denies any possible specific action. It's an ultimatum that has the effect of dismissing all other discussion, which is what it has done. If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back I’d be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and it’s a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now it’s not true that it’s unique to us in anyway. It’s universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:It's that, the original DTA discussion was provoked by something that has no apparent legislative solution, leading to a discussion on DTA instead of the prior thing which I see as a legitimate area for discussion. There's no such thing as "no apparent legislative solution". The only thing that gets even close to that is Constitutional or judicial obstacles, and as the anti-abortion movement showed, even those obstacles can be shifted out of the way if you build enough public support. oscarthewilde posted:to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough "Get more Supreme Court justices who agree with you" is ultimately a legislative solution. The anti-abortion movement got that right-wing Supreme Court by holding the Senate when a seat opened up and refusing to permit the appointment of non-right-wing candidates. They even held it open through an election, where the electorate backed their decision by not only allowing the GOP to keep their Senate majority but also giving them a right-wing president who'd appoint right-wing anti-abortion candidates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's no such thing as "no apparent legislative solution". The only thing that gets even close to that is Constitutional or judicial obstacles, and as the anti-abortion movement showed, even those obstacles can be shifted out of the way if you build enough public support. Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is. Bar Ran Dun posted:If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back I’d be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and it’s a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now it’s not true that it’s unique to us in anyway. It’s universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there. I do understand the point of view that this involves, but to go back to your prior point I don't think k everyone's myths of origin can be reconciled with each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
oscarthewilde posted:to be completely fair, there was never a legislative solution for banning abortion, nor was there even a legislative solution for legalizing it. the legal status of abortion in the US has never been as thorough as it should have been, and the anti-abortionists realized that forming a hard-right majority on the supreme court - a fact relatively easily realised without majority legislative support - could get them what they wanted. even if the democrats controlled both houses of congress, and even if there they had the political will and desire to push through federal anti-gun legislation in a combative, unipartisan manner, any law would still bump against a rabidly right-wing supreme court. of course political and grass roots support are important, but that might not be enough Almost every part of that is wrong though. There were decades of enacting abortion restrictions in state and federal legislature then testing them in the courts, and the current makeup of the courts is the direct result of fierce and extended determination by anti-abortionists to control not just the White House, but the Senate as well. Once they got that, actually maintaining abortion bans in the states was also because they work hard to keep legislatures packed with anti-abortionists. Anti-abortionists have been amazingly focused on winning the vote and as a result they have become heavily over represented at all levels of government. Unfortunately one way or the other, pro gun people similarly have that kind of will (partly due to a lot of overlap of the same people) but there it's even harder since they feel personally impacted by gun restriction in a way that they don't really by other women getting abortions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I do understand the point of view that this involves, but to go back to your prior point I don't think k everyone's myths of origin can be reconciled with each other. They don’t need to be. A synthesis is unnecessary. Correlation isn’t a synthesis. Correlation is let’s all go in the same direction, but we don’t have to be the same!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is. Sure they can. It might take more than a simple majority vote, and it might require holding that majority for a prolonged time period, but if there's strong, long-lasting public support for the legislature abolishing itself, then no amount of legalese is going going to get in the way. Ultimately, the Senate is the final arbiter of who makes it onto the Supreme Court, which in turn is the final* arbiter of is or isn't allowed. *In practice, public opinion is always the final check on the power of all three branches of government. The Supreme Court making bold pronouncements that go well beyond what public opinion is willing to support can backfire pretty badly, as the Taney Court found out in the aftermath of Dred Scott.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit? Accelerationism at its finest
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit? I'm extremely saddened by the headline I read after confirming the link hadn't sent me to an Onion article.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit? I think that it bears remembering that these are the same people who successfully stacked the court to overturn Roe and the majority of the VRA. I'd suggest taking them at their word in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Skex posted:I'd suggest taking them at their word in this case. Yeah this is it, they are telling us explicitly the post election fascist agenda. If they win, they’ll try to do all this, and will likely accomplish it if they win as they clearly intend to abandon democracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
project 2025 is scary, but both your Roe and VRA examples were decades long projects from ancient elder GOP establishment types. todays regressive have a ton of braindrain. and other short term attention span issues. like yeah a R win is like really bad, even if that prez is somehow not Donnie or not Ron. also maybe the a way to deal with project 2025 is for some people to consider local community good meaning working in the local gov?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
I think recruiting rubes off the street speaks to the "planning" and "complexity" of the "shadow government." About the same thing happened last time. They will have learned what the early hurdles are to canceling elections in 2028, but the brain drain as mentioned is quite evident. If it gets bad with Trump back in power, anyone with sense will be reliant on stuff like Tuberville holds and the state of California effectively blocking fascist projects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Any thoughts on the Heritage Foundation's MAGA takeover bullshit? it seems like a straightforward continuation of their previous practice of writing up model legislation to dismantle corporate regulation and undermine labor unionization. ation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 07:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it seems like a straightforward continuation of their previous practice of writing up model legislation to dismantle corporate regulation and undermine labor unionization. Schedule F. They’re gunna purge the government this time. They started to at the end last time, but they started too late (the order was Oct 2020) and didn’t manage reschedule anybody by Jan 2021. It will not be a straight forward continuation. They’re explicitly telling you what they’re going to do. They’re explicitly telling you they’re going to be turning the Justice department at folks that oppose them. They’ve already shown where they intend to go with using CBP as police, I mean they were rather literally black bagging folks in Portland . They’re fascists and they will be fascists. There won’t be three years of old conservatives getting in the way this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 07:40
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Schedule F. you mistook my meaning, but it was because i did not make it clear. it is entirely believable and should be taken seriously (and literally, etc.) because it is a straightforward continuation. purging the regulatory state has always been one of the main goals of the heritage foundation and the american conservative movement in general. schedule F is model legislation in every sense but the most obnoxiously literal. the main difference is that trump and the trump-lite presidential candidates want to make it a big flashy sudden purge rather than the "starve it until it's weak enough to drown in a bathtub" approach of reagan, gingrich, etc. i don't know if that would be more damaging or less than the erosive approach of previous republicans but i'm also not dying to find out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:00
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Do you think that the US legislature would be able to vote itself out of existence, in anything other than the most hypothetical situation? It's not impossible in the way that something falling upwards is impossible, but in a practicable way it is. Everything is hypothetical until it happens, fortunately we do have historical precedent for "the legislature voting itself out of existence": the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. A far more likely scenario is a third party gets enough electoral college votes to force the House of Representatives to pick the President, so while I can agree that it is mostly a thought experiment, I do not agree it is only hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:19
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Almost every part of that is wrong though. There were decades of enacting abortion restrictions in state and federal legislature then testing them in the courts, and the current makeup of the courts is the direct result of fierce and extended determination by anti-abortionists to control not just the White House, but the Senate as well. Once they got that, actually maintaining abortion bans in the states was also because they work hard to keep legislatures packed with anti-abortionists. Anti-abortionists have been amazingly focused on winning the vote and as a result they have become heavily over represented at all levels of government. The gun movement is actually the weakest it's been in decades; NRA's in a slow process of collapse and public opinion has turned pretty heavily on the issue. If the House weren't completely busted right now, it'd be a pretty effective wedge issue going into 2024. The illusion of futility is part of the rhetorical playbook that the group uses to push against advocacy on the topic. Bar Ran Dun posted:If my response below is a conversation that you want pick up when you get back I’d be happy to. But the thing you need to see in what they are asserting is that our society is immoral is true. When you blow them off you blow that off and it’s a truth. Our society is very often and undeniably immoral. Now it’s not true that it’s unique to us in anyway. It’s universal that societies are immoral. So their following points (that it should end and the world would be better if it did) are not true and are frankly naive and ahistorical. But if you blow them off right at the beginning the dialogue can never get to there. We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times. The naive ahistoricism of the position is the point- it's an argument designed to sabotage other discussion. By insisting that we re-entertain and re-explain the most basic principles of ethics and government, the user can repeatedly change the scope and specific subject and continue to assert control of the conversation, demanding a shifting series of explanations and caveats. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:20
|
|
|
I think understanding it as continuation is dangerous. It’s a fascist party now. I think there will be a qualitative difference in behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:24
|
|
|
I can't believe how much bandwidth was expended fighting about "Death to America" when all it really is is an ironic way to express annoyance at things as mundane as running into too many red lights on your drive to work. It's the Middle Eastern version of saying "Thanks, Obama."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:it's obvious, trivial, I’ve gotta sleep. But what if it’s not, (I mean it’s also obvious to me.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think understanding it as continuation is dangerous. It’s a fascist party now. I think there will be a qualitative difference in behavior. i think you might be catastrophizing things but i dunno for sure. politicians promising and planning to do something is not the same as actually doing it, and campaigning is pretty much always more ardent than actually governing. wanting isn't having in politics, as i'm sure any observer of american politics knows, even if sometimes it feels like democrats are forever the political equivalent of the washington generals. all that said, trump quite effectively nuked and paved the judiciary with the coordination of the federalist society and i think that's a big part of why republicans all eventually fell in line. it's more believable that conservatives who have qualms about centralizing power would line up behind a plan like Schedule F, to do something conservatives have wanted to happen for decades. you called the difference qualitative. i disagree: it's quantitative, grabbing the whole pie all at once. that is fascist, to my mind. mainstream conservatives deciding they can work with the far right to get what they want has a pretty bad history and you're right to invoke it i think. what i am sure about is that republicans running on loving up the regulatory state is that it is a continuation of one of the most effective ways they've been making day-to-day life worse for decades. every big watershed republican success has been built on a pile of incremental regulatory and judicial changes that had already built that success in a de facto way for much of the country. even if you read the "decisive" action as hot air and find Trumpstaffeln to be far-fetched, the fact remains that even a failed attempt to grab the whole pie that only gets a handful still leaves a huge mess. the most cool-headed take is that republicans have a plan to run the federal government like florida and that's pretty bad news!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 11:36
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Schedule F. They started late last time because they didn’t think the establishment would so overtly fight change. Instead they went on witch hunt after witch hunt. Mueller. Mueller. Mueller. You can call them fascists, but they’re essentially fighting against the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 12:54
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:They started late last time because they didn’t think the establishment would so overtly fight change. Instead they went on witch hunt after witch hunt. Mueller. Mueller. Mueller. They're fascists fighting capitalists who have been using fascism as political and social control.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 13:02
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/article/biden-democrats-election-2024-campaign-fundraising-trump-6d16c590a1f1fed055b6544e36c03b9a So does anyone know if Biden actually spent any of his fundraising yet on adverts to improve his polling? Also if the polls are so dire for him, shouldn't his fundraising be worse?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:They're fascists fighting capitalists who have been using fascism as political and social control. Word order matters Point being, there’s no innocents in this fight. If you don’t like the court stacking blame Ruth who started the precedence and finished it poorly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 13:46
|
|
|
Pleasant Friend posted:https://apnews.com/article/biden-democrats-election-2024-campaign-fundraising-trump-6d16c590a1f1fed055b6544e36c03b9a Election spending is weird. Joe Biden has about 20 million on hand and spent about 2 million DNC spent around 50 million. Then the numerous Political action committees will get their spend, and you can become disillusioned of the whole process
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 13:52
|
|
|
Biden's approval rating continues its free fall: https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1726240932507349100   NBC posted:Poll: Biden’s standing hits new lows amid Israel-Hamas war
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
B B posted:Biden's approval rating continues its free fall: I love how with so many polls there's always one where Biden did worse than he did in the previous poll by that firm, and the media hops on it for a free "Biden free fall!!!!" narrative and some cheap clicks. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Nov 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
The press keeps harping on this "why aren't Biden's low approval numbers benefiting Republicans???" without considering that maybe a lot of people are disapproving from his left, and they would obviously not support Republicans. I feel like the first example of them acting like opposition to Democratic policy could only be from the right, when it was clearly not true, was the ACA. During negotiations support would poll around 40%, but it always seemed to me like if you included people who were upset it wasn't single payer, or at least something with a public option, you would've had a 50%+ majority easily wanting Obamacare or something more, but the press framed it like 60% of the public was afraid of Death Panels. Of course, nobody came out to give the Dems a "nice try!" vote in the midterms and they got demolished.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The gun movement is actually the weakest it's been in decades; NRA's in a slow process of collapse and public opinion has turned pretty heavily on the issue. If the House weren't completely busted right now, it'd be a pretty effective wedge issue going into 2024. The illusion of futility is part of the rhetorical playbook that the group uses to push against advocacy on the topic. NRA’s trying to rebrand itself as a #sports organization right now. I hope it works out terribly for them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
B B posted:Biden's approval rating continues its free fall: Joe Biden is flushing his presidency down the toilet on behalf of a country that absolutely loving hates him and is openly rooting for his likely opponent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
I think most people hate him and his opponent, which is still not very good for him at all. It’s not great when we go a good ten years with the trusty old “I’ll shoot the hostages!” strategy from the democrats three times in a row. It worked once, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 19:18 |
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Joe Biden is flushing his presidency down the toilet on behalf of a country that absolutely loving hates him and is openly rooting for his likely opponent. He'd also lose support if he didn't express support for Israel
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 17:37
|
|
