|
ded posted:She will not leave till she dies or strokes out and is unable to speak. Given that someone got elected to the legislature after dying i'm pretty sure that even if she stroked out and was a vegetable she'd still be in office for 3 more terms.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Best Friends posted:https://twitter.com/thrasherxy/status/1325865699533856768?s=21 There is a difference between "this should happen" and "I want this event to happen", and Ezekiel Emmanuel might be a terrible person for all I know, but that tweet is a disingenuous statement as written. This may be because Steven Thrasher's point requires more nuance than will fit in a single tweet, so I guess I'll read a tweet thread and an article just to find out but I do wish we normalized making GBS threads on people's manipulative arguments--at least when they're philosophy adjacent. Edit: Reviewed the article and the tweet thread, and I think, in this very specific instance, Steven Thrasher is not being intellectually honest. Again, that might be because Ezekiel Emmanuel is a terrible pick for reasons not listed there and he feels a responsibility to use the tools of rhetoric in a dishonest fashion to achieve higher and more righteous aims, or some other rational and reasonable incentive, or some temporary and flighting fancy that is not representative of their greater work. I don't know the guy. piL fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
How is it Trump is the greatest threat to our Democracy, a fascist dictator who is a combination of Hitler and Mussolini, but isn't going to be prosecuted? Because Biden sucks. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1247959?__twitter_impression=true https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/1328678339675099141
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:How is it Trump is the greatest threat to our Democracy, a fascist dictator who is a combination of Hitler and Mussolini, but isn't going to be prosecuted? The Democrats can gargle my balls if they think I'm giving them another gimmee vote next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Flying_Crab posted:The Democrats can gargle my balls if they think I'm giving them another gimmee vote next time. My NoJoers are smiling at me, lib. Can you say the same?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
I've seen that article flying around but it doesn't really tell us anything new—Biden allegedly doesn't want to get his administration bogged down in prosecuting the old one, but he's also leaving any actual legal action up to the discretion of the AG and the Justice Department, and it's irrelevant for state investigations anyway (Which are already ongoing).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the AG and Justice Department are going to take their lead from him and not do anything about it. Claiming he's leaving it open for others to do it doesn't actually count for anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
Wait wait wait, Trump has conned so many people that he is finally Out Of Lawyers who will represent him(barring bottom of barrel bitchboi Guiliani). Now is the time we ease up on the guy? I mean, get the IRS up his rear end for a change. The Federal government going "Nah, pass." on DJT under Biden will definitely lead me to only support third party reform jesus. The Decorumcrats are useless. I realize ole' Diamond Joe hasn't even been inaugurated, but signalling you'll maaaybe Gerald Ford to Donald makes me want to poke my eyes out. Even just floating it to see how it plays is so half assed. Reminds me of all the banks walking away scott free from 2009 and AG Eric Holder shrugging and nodding along.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
lawyers will always try to represent him, chasing that money along with the name
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
Former president's don't get prosecuted. This is a gentleman's agreement between them because they are all criminals in the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:How is it Trump is the greatest threat to our Democracy, a fascist dictator who is a combination of Hitler and Mussolini, but isn't going to be prosecuted? He said an independent prosecutor might be on the table, but announcing anything that sounds like the intention to nail the guy that effectively just less than 50% of the American public voted for and you'd really rather not piss off before you take office, before you take office, does not sound, politically speaking, wise. I know y'all are the military, but consider the messaging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:He said an independent prosecutor might be on the table, but announcing anything that sounds like the intention to nail the guy that effectively just less than 50% of the American public voted for and you'd really rather not piss off before you take office, before you take office, does not sound, politically speaking, wise. What does it matter if the chuds flip out before or after he takes office? Also , just him saying he won't direct any investigation means no prosecutor is going to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
J.theYellow posted:He said an independent prosecutor might be on the table, but announcing anything that sounds like the intention to nail the guy that effectively just less than 50% of the American public voted for and you'd really rather not piss off before you take office, before you take office, does not sound, politically speaking, wise. You honestly think that the people who voted for Trump are not pissed off at Biden right now? Have you been paying attention at all? What is he afraid of, that they won't vote for him? That they'll continue to vote for Republican politicians? Trump doesn't get any Federal charges, and I'll be surprised if he gets convicted of any state charges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Not doing anything, even the simple act of verbally condemning him, does something! It showed his opponents that he won't do anything to them even as they threaten to publically execute government officials, relitigate the democratic process, and hell, threaten a coup on top of it all. Like come the gently caress on, this is clearly inappropriate behavior and a symbol of things to come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:You honestly think that the people who voted for Trump are not pissed off at Biden right now? Have you been paying attention at all? Some of them, yeah. The rest are easily bamboozled fools that thought they could one day be rich and important. Biden's been on the record as genuinely believing America's division can be healed, even a little. I don't want to argue with fools, but the lesson of the 1990s was that progress leaves people who feel they got left behind, but they don't go away. I expect the Biden camp is just hoping someone doesn't have plans to blow up another federal building. Or that they don't decide to burn Congress like what's happening in Guatemala today. Revenge is a bad political platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:02
|
|
|
What about accountability as a political platform?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:What about accountability as a political platform? What major donors are going to support that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
So you don't think we should have accountability for American politicians?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:So you don't think we should have accountability for American politicians? DJT is not nor has he ever cared to be a politician. Politicians at least care about getting elected and re-elected. It's only important to him now because he doesn't like to lose, not that he ever cared what any of his voters thought. I'd be happy if he has to give up all his American holdings and live truly destitute. For him, it'd be worse than prison. But wanting it doesn't make it happen, and I expect he'll have a stroke on a golf course before long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
The extremely sad thing is that I think the Dems are actually doing the right thing by not shouting harder about the Republicans trying to flagrantly steal the election, mostly because our media is so decorum-poisoned that the Dems doing so would shift reporting from "Republicans are flagrantly trying to steal the election" to "Dems say Republicans are flagrantly trying to steal the election. Republicans say otherwise. YOU DECIDE!" It's extremely dumb and depressing, but that's what our media environment is like. Also: From a purely practical standpoint Trump is still the president and still has control of the levers of power for the next two months, as do his cronies. Announcing "We're gonna nail the bastards" now further incentivizes them to refuse to hand over power (Since they're hosed either way), destroy evidence, or just wreck up the place in general on their way out. It also could encourage Trump's most delusional, desperate, and heavily armed supporters that they have to do something to prevent Biden from taking office. Even if Biden was personally fully committed to seeing Trump spend the rest of his life in a prison cell (Not that I think he is, unfortunately), it's still in the incoming administration's best interests to not kick up the potential hornet's nest before they actually gain access to the levers of power and protection necessary to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
So basically, we shouldn't hold people who threaten everything we stand for accountable because: they threaten us and could hurt us if we punish them!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 17:59
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:So basically, we shouldn't hold people who threaten everything we stand for accountable because: they threaten us and could hurt us if we punish them! Or basically, there are far more pressing matters, one in particular encompassing life and death, that matter more in the short term. And even if the feds don't get around to fiery wrath right away, New York County is ready.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
the accountability enforcement people would be the Department of Justice and Federal law agencies, which the people whom we want to hold accountable are currently in command of. do you see why this is a problem until January? also, accountability requires a majority consensus on "wrongdoing" and impartial judgement of reality. as a nation we have neither of those things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
poo poo I forgot we Americans can't handle doing more than one thing at a time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:poo poo I forgot we Americans can't handle doing more than one thing at a time. Most of us "we Americans" are not professional law enforcement, and understand that participating in a representative democracy means ceding control over civil society to people we elect. I say most of us, because only slightly fewer than half voted for Trump, and a number of those really, really wish he was dictator for life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:poo poo I forgot we Americans can't handle doing more than one thing at a time. technically we can't even do one thing at a time until January when Biden actually takes over, which is sort of the crux of the issue
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
I don't think anyone was operating in the present tense when speaking of action, as a reminder we are talking about a president who has had a contentious election, faces criticism from the other party for having stolen said election, and the general response to having any kind of accountability for the administration as a plan, not action, is to not in the name of unity. We are talking about this because of this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1247959?__twitter_impression=true
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Yes, I'm sure Biden is not announcing any prosecution of Trump because he doesn't want to incite the Trump administration to do anything stupid. That has to be it and not that Biden isn't going to go after Trump because prosecuting former presidents just isn't done. And I'm really laughing at all this "attempted coup" and "stealing the election," which is amounting to a bunch of lawsuits that aren't going anywhere. Remember when people were freaking out about Trump firing the leadership at the DoD and it turned out it was just because he wanted to end US military presence in Afghanistan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
I prefer my coups big and flashy, preferably directed by Michael Bay. Everyone knows that terrible things happen obviously, and would never get normalized because of the incompetency!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
Not trying to be a sarcastic dick about all of this, it's just very upsetting to see the same pattern play out for 20 years.
Apathetic Medic fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
you just need someone who has been mainlining West Wing and seen hamilton 19 times to condescendingly explain to you why your ideas are dumb and wrong is all then you'll get it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:you just need someone who has been mainlining West Wing and seen hamilton 19 times to condescendingly explain to you why your ideas are dumb and wrong is all then you'll get it I'll have you know that for all my faults I have never seen The West Wing (nor do I want to)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
i recommend anyone who wants to push Biden left, or indeed to push anyone in any direction, to spend their time building working class power through local democratic organizations with international alliances. it's never too soon to start doing!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
I've honestly never seen a higher level Democrat do more for their voter base than they do for their oppositions voting base. Does anyone know why this is? It's starting to feel like there's only one party in America, just with two flavors lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I'll have you know that for all my faults I have never seen The West Wing (nor do I want to) you voted for Sanders in the primary, didn't you? you're firmly entrenched on the "problem" list for the big tent, buddy!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:I've honestly never seen a higher level Democrat do more for their voter base than they do for their oppositions voting base. Does anyone know why this is? It's starting to feel like there's only one party in America, just with two flavors lol I don't know. I know that my Republican friends want low taxes, guns, and the government out of their lives. This means that they don't want the government doing anything for them either, so they don't worry about social security and medicare. They also object to anyone else getting what they perceive as special status or favors due to race, etc. The Republican Party delivers on this. The Democrats I know want labor protection, high wages, favored status for US workers, and a robust welfare state (tax payer funded education, healthcare, and retirement.) The Democratic Party doesn't deliver on any of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 20:51
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I don't know. I know that my Republican friends want low taxes, guns, and the government out of their lives. This means that they don't want the government doing anything for them either, so they don't worry about social security and medicare. They also object to anyone else getting what they perceive as special status or favors due to race, etc. The Republican Party delivers on this. Extremely this. Also, republicans have a bizzaro view of what big government means. Big government is not the F35 costing a gazillion dollars. Big government is that they had to call the IRS ten years ago and the person who answered the phone was black.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:I don't know. I know that my Republican friends want low taxes, guns, and the government out of their lives. This means that they don't want the government doing anything for them either, so they don't worry about social security and medicare. They also object to anyone else getting what they perceive as special status or favors due to race, etc. The Republican Party delivers on this. Because the Democratic Party is run by people who profit from the same poo poo as the people who run the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
The prefect synthesis of mainline dem thought is that Trump is a corrupt dictator in waiting, but also that he should never be held to account, because that's impolite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Apathetic Medic posted:I've honestly never seen a higher level Democrat do more for their voter base than they do for their oppositions voting base. Does anyone know why this is? It's starting to feel like there's only one party in America, just with two flavors lol PeterCat posted:I don't know. I know that my Republican friends want low taxes, guns, and the government out of their lives. This means that they don't want the government doing anything for them either, so they don't worry about social security and medicare. They also object to anyone else getting what they perceive as special status or favors due to race, etc. The Republican Party delivers on this. This is a simple question with a complex answer, but it comes down to two primary factors: The relatively homogeneous nature of the Republican base versus the heterogeneous nature of the Democratic base, and the simple fact that it is far easier to slow or reverse progress than it is to create it. First, apologies for the long post below. Second, some background history on how we got to where we are now: During FDR's term, the Democrats relied on the "New Deal Coalition" of ethnic minorities (Primarily African-Americans, Jews, and Catholics), urban centers, white southerners, labor unions, and the poor. Thanks to this coalition, the Dems were able to control the White House for seven out of nine terms from 1933-1969 (Interrupted only by two terms of Eisenhower), and control of Congress for all but four years of that span (1947-49 and 1953-1955). Ethnically and ideologically diverse, this coalition delivered the New Deal, navigated the nation through World War II, and created the nucleus of the modern welfare state through Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. But as strong as this coalition was, it was also fractious—particularly the southern wing of the party, which strongly opposed the civil rights movement and equal protection for African-Americans. Roosevelt himself failed to pass any significant Civil Rights legislation, and Truman could only achieve integration of the armed forces through executive order. Only Lyndon Johnson was able to force through passage of the first significant civil rights legislation since the Civil War (The Civil Rights Act of 1957, followed during his presidency by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965), and these efforts lead to a deep splintering of the party that was further shattered by the Vietnam War. At the end of this period, Richard Nixon was able to exploit the divisions in the Democratic Party by employing the "Southern Strategy" of directly appealing to southern segregationists, which triggered a political realignment in the South that has continued into the present day. This was a crippling blow for the Democratic Party. Since Reconstruction the states of the former Confederacy had voted for Democrats without fail, and the electoral bedrock of the "Solid South" had helped deliver both presidential victories and congressional majorities for nearly a century. Without it, the party entered a long winter of defeat and despair that it took until the 1990s to begin recovering from on a Presidential level, and are still suffering from on the congressional level. In addition, the Republicans were also able to utilize significant wedge issues such as abortion and gun rights to further splinter the Democratic base and strengthen their own electoral coalition, weakening and eventually breaking formerly Democratic rural areas. And finally, sharp declines in Union membership from the 1950s onwards greatly weakened the party's fundraising and organizing. Today, the Democratic coalition is far more ideologically and ethnically diverse than the Republican Party. It encompasses ethnic minorities, educated liberals, union members, hardcore socialists, dedicated centrists, and everybody in-between. And as the Republican Party has surged farther and farther to the right, the gulf between the ideological wings of the Party have grown larger and larger. And, from an electoral perspective, this is a problem. The Republican base is white. It believes in God. It loves guns, and hates abortion. It believes in low taxes, and instinctually despises government regulation. The Republican base overwhelmingly consumes right-wing media, particularly Fox News and radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, and because of this there is a general consensus among the on what the party believes and stands for. The Democratic base is multi-ethnic. Some parts believe in God, and some don't. Some parts love guns, others want to see them banned. Abortion and LGBT rights are now generally a given, but are still controversial among many traditionally democratic constituencies. They're more likely to accept taxes but nobody like paying taxes, and their views on regulations and government interference are going to depend very heavily on whether they, personally, are effected by the regulations/interference. And their media consumption is all over the place—some might watch cable news like CNN or MSNBC, others might be entirely reliant on local news or newspapers, some subscribe to national papers and magazines like the New Yorker or the Washington Post, and an increasing number get their news exclusively through social media like Facebook and Twitter. All of this is to say: It is much, much harder to find a consensus within the Democratic base than the Republican one, which in turn makes governing much harder. Medicare for All is a prime example: While supported by a majority of the Democratic base, it is opposed by one of its strongest and most important constituencies: Labor Unions. And while consensus can be found, it often results in watered-down, less effective policies and legislation because every part of the party has to agree to it—and with Republican opposition having calcified into a solid block of "No," any legislation is guaranteed to fail if every part of the party doesn't agree to it. And this brings us to the second major factor: That it is hard to build things, and easy to destroy them. Once again, the issue of healthcare provides an important example: The Democratic Party has been pushing for universal healthcare since 1948, when it appeared as a plank of Harry Truman's Fair Deal. While major progress was made with the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, infighting and conservative opposition prevented the Democrats from achieving any kind of ostensibly universal healthcare until 2010's Affordable Care Act—a piece of legislation that was, as we all know, massively flawed and severely watered down. But even this mediocre attempt at universal healthcare was a monumental achievement, and had been incredibly difficult to pass—to the point that many freshman Democratic legislators had to be convinced to vote for the bill even when they knew it would likely cost them their seats. And even once the bill was passed, it faced constant court challenges, was crippled by the Supreme Court, came within a hair's breadth of repealed that was stopped only by John McCain's personal spite, and even now may be struck down entirely by our insane and reactionary Supreme Court. But destroying things or blocking progress? That's easy. Government agencies can suffer funding cuts or get staffed by idiots and morons who don't understand, don't care, or directly oppose the mission their organization has been tasked to accomplish. Legislation and executive actions can be tied up in court for years. In the Senate, legislation and appointments can easily be stopped up by the archaic and byzantine systems that have been purposefully twisted into direct mechanisms to halt progress. And on a state level, even simple promises like "Fix the drat roads" can be blocked by intransigent legislators elected from self-gerrymandered districts. This isn't to say that Republican voters are actually served by their elected officials. Gun rights in particular is an area where you'll see a lot of frustration, as the Republicans have done little to do anything but prevent new legislation from passing. And though there's still a long way to go, LGBT rights are still enshrined into law, and the significant progress that has been made over the past two decades (Because remember, anti-sodomy laws were still on the books and enforceable until 2003) has been a constant source of frustration and disappointment for the religious right. And when the Republicans most recently controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they had immense difficulty passing anything due to the hard-right members of the House refusing to acquiesce to anything that could make it through a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. But in its most basic, polisci 101 form, conservatism is about halting or slowing progress—and because halting progress is so easy, conservatives are more easily able to satisfy their voters. And because the other half of the spectrum is about creating progress, and because progress is so easily stopped, and because the liberal and leftist wings can't even agree on what the end goal of that progress should even be half of the time, the Democratic Party is inherently less capable of satisfying their base—or more specifically, the extremely diverse constituent groups that make up their base. And it's not like they don't try, because many of them do—the 2009-11 Dem trifecta delivered billions of dollars of aid, created new and popular programs (Though some, like the ACA, would take years to become popular and were initially reviled), and through executive actions and judicial appointments the Obama administration was able to take action or influence decisions on the environment, climate, LGBT rights, immigration, and other areas important to Democratic constituencies. And Democratic legislatures and governors across the country have worked to take similar actions—just this past week, for instance, the Democratic governor and attorney general of Michigan took action to shut down an oil pipeline that runs under the Straits of Mackinac, a massive victory for environmental activists who feared the consequences a leak or break could have on the Great Lakes. But, as is the case everywhere else, these victories are limited by what these politicians can accomplish through the limited powers they hold within the systems they exist in, and the near-universal opposition that comes from the Republican Party and conservative judiciaries. Which brings me to my final point: Godholio posted:Because the Democratic Party is run by people who profit from the same poo poo as the people who run the GOP. This is often taken as the cynical view of politics, that it doesn't matter if a politician is a Republican or Democrat because both sides are fundamentally the same. I certainly won't disagree that there are a wide number of absolute garbage Democratic politicians who work to block progress to equal or even greater degrees than their Republican opponents (Cuomo and his ilk go here). But to a degree, I believe this is actually an optimistic view of politics, because it presupposes that the problem is the Democrats themselves—and if we got better people into office, we'd get better politics and real progress. To a degree, this is true. If we had better people in office, obviously we'd get better things. But the problem isn't (for the most part) the current Democrats in office, flawed as they may be—It's our fundamentally broken electoral system that allows for a party that represents an ever-decreasing minority of Americans to wield governing majorities on both the federal and state level. And until that problem is solved, and a state like Michigan can have a legislature whose ruling party didn't lose the popular vote by nearly a full five points in their last election, then it doesn't matter whether every Democrat in office is more like Pelosi or AOC—because they will all run into the same Republican legislative and conservative judicial opposition that will prevent them from achieving any progress, let alone the kind of of progress that this country desperately and truly needs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2020 06:10
|
|