Yeah this isn’t exactly surprising. What would surprise me would be if someone managed to find a reich-winger who was competent and also not a sadistic psychopath, but I’m not going to be holding my breath waiting for that discovery – I expect someone will find an actual literal unicorn first
It is not surprising to us but you should not discount or disarm the outrage people should feel. This is unethical inexcusable behavior and you are helping normalize it.
How is it “normalizing” fuck-all to imply that all conservatives are immoral and either incompetent or psychopaths? They fucking are, anybody can see that; saying it out loud isn’t “discounting or disarming the outrage people should feel”. Go clutch your pearls somewhere else
You’re too dunce to understand what’s happening. Just like the majority of people
Everyone sits around doing nothing while the rich pillage this country. Why do we let them? Because they’ve got the best psychologists advising them how to trick us. One of those those tricks is disarming outrage. Outrage leads to anger, which leads to action. That outrage is neutralized when it’s framed as something everyone should know. Yes, WE Obviously know but not everyone does. They shouldn’t be made to feel dumb for being naive and gullible. I’m Sure I’ll be downvoted for this but I really don’t care. There’s so many bots on Lemmy pushing propaganda it’s become insufferable
By framing this as common knowledge, which obviously there wouldn’t be an article about if it were, you are effectively calling them stupid for being surprised. But you know everything don’t you.
Never in history has the population let the rich get away with such disgusting corruption and unethical behavior. They’ve got the psychology behind it figured out. Take out your anger on me for pointing that out.
For someone who keeps insisting that I and everybody else is stupid and we don’t see what you see, you have a funny habit of claiming that I’m acting like I know everything and have everything figured out. Same with that weird “take out your anger on me” comment, considering you’re the one who’s been frothing at the mouth here. It’s not like I think you’re wrong, you’re just being a real twat about it.
Could I rent you out for an event? I’d love to use you to project movies on the Moon.
Like I said, it’s not like I disagree with the general idea behind that link you posted, so I really don’t know what you want from me here? You’ve just been a huge twat about getting your point across and your kitchen psychology is hilarious. Real case of “you’re not wrong, you’re just an asshole”
Everyone sits around doing nothing while the rich pillage this country. Why do we let them? Because they’ve got the best psychologists advising them how to trick us. One of those tricks is disarming outrage. Outrage leads to anger, which leads to action. That outrage is neutralized when it’s framed as something everyone should know. Yes, WE Obviously know but not everyone does. They shouldn’t be made to feel dumb for being naive and gullible. I’m Sure I’ll be downvoted for this but I really don’t care. There’s so many bots on Lemmy pushing propaganda it’s become insufferable
It is not surprising to us but you should not discount or disarm the outrage people should feel. This is unethical inexcusable behavior and you are helping normalize it.
Don’t forget that this state is not one cohesive government. The CITIES where this is being said are largely blue cities that absolutely believe in climate change and do things to prevent it (though probably not enough). So please don’t assume all the governments here are as stupid as the state government
It’s starting to move in that direction, but extremely slowly over the decades. Think more a park & ride (i.e. drive to parking lot then ride a light rail the rest of the way to work) vs. a subway system the whole way. It’s only liberal-ish in relation to the rest of Texas.
No shit, do I look like the city planner? I’m saying that people need to look at these large cities with more nuance than “Big City Bad” and realize that things are more complicated than one singular governmental body. In the case of Houston and more specifically this stretch of highway, You have the state government with an overarching control of I-10 through Texas, then this particular stretch of it goes through the cities of Katy and Houston, connecting dozens of other smaller towns and cities with in the metro area.
To look at one single stretch of highway and pretend it is emblematic of the entire state/city is idiotic and shows a bad faith attempt to paint the populace with as wide a brush as possible.
I am only pushing back on this because I am just so damn tired of the constant “Texas Bad” posts comments that are unwilling to engage in a meaningful conversation about the topic and pretend like my state is full of the dumbest most right wing shit heels, while we also have some of the largest left leaning cities in the country.
I am only pushing back on this because I am just so damn tired of the constant “Texas Bad” posts comments that are unwilling to engage in a meaningful conversation about the topic and pretend like my state is full of the dumbest most right wing shit heels, while we also have some of the largest left leaning cities in the country.
Believe it or not, I’m a bike/ped/transit activist in Atlanta. I understand both “how a metropolis works,” and your sentiment, better than you realize.
Having said that, I still stand behind my cynical comment. Let’s not pretend the Houston city government hasn’t been largely complicit with this shit for decades, regardless of how “blue” their constituents are. Frankly, even some of the most bleeding-heart liberals here throughout America get real mad, real fast, the instant anybody makes even the meekest suggestion that maybe they should try getting out of their cars. (Or, very relatedly, suggesting that maybe we should allow more housing density anywhere near their single-family homes, for that matter.) That laziness and NIMBY sense of entitlement (for a lifestyle built on redlining and Ponzi schemes, no less) is emblematic of how even the the “bluest” American cities are run, across the board.
Tell me you listen to the propaganda about induced demand without… there are ways to add lanes without making it worse. But they don’t want to pay for it.
In his Truth Social tirade, Mr Trump slammed the August 2022 at his Florida home and private club.
“WOW! I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the ‘Icebox,’ and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE.
What’s he complaining about? Isn’t he the one who said the President can do no wrong?
That was kind of my point. Trump is trying to speak to his base that has no problems with police violence or guns, but do somehow care when HE complains about how it affects HIM.
I just had a disagreement with someone on Lemmy a couple days ago who said Biden did nothing for the LGBTQ+ community. Maybe we just need more Trump headlines to educate people? Y’know, since they don’t read headlines about Biden
I mean, I speak from experience. I personally know a lot of Republicans (all boomers) and they would genuinely believe that. At every opportunity they are talking about the deep state, some woke shit and how corrupt the FBI is, and how there’s this massive conspiracy to assassinate trump. They all have a nearly religious view of him saying that if he dies, he’d be a “martyr” for Republicans, so that the “silent majority” will finally take a stand.
Biden did a lot of good shit. People saying he's the same or even worse than Trump have completely lost the plot or are just RuZZian bots / useful idiots parroting RuZZian propaganda.
I can translate you you need: the legislation that he passed has nice names but in reality each bill is filled with spending for corporations and special interests (colloquially known as ‘pork barrel spending’).
For example his climate change bill has subsidies and payouts for the coal industry, his CHIPs Act had no oversight or specification about how the money should be spent etc. Biden has approved more oil and drilling contracts than even Trump.
Many Democratic voters get their information from big corporate media outlets, who have a vested interest in protecting corporate interests themselves. These voters end up recieving very little factual information to base their decisions on, and instead end up thinking Biden has “Done a lot of good” because they were given a vague feeling that he has by the corporate media.
That has very little to do with my statement. I'm very much aware of Biden's shortcomings, I'm just not as delusional to think that Trump would be the better, let alone a good option here. And if we look at it historically he's still, for what it's worth, one of the better US presidents too.
The climate topic is just a mess anyway, because ultimately neither politicians, CEO's, nor voters actually want actual climate action being taken, because of how it would affect them. It's simply too late at this point to have sufficient climate action without major repercussions, so people rather live out their remaining comfy life and blend out what it means for younger people (who are, small minority aside, just as deluded on that topic) and future generations.
You are clearly not well informed. Are you not American?
Presidents don’t make legislation. They don’t introduce bills and except in unusual circumstances are expected to sign them. They can’t modify them.
Secondly, your claims that there is a bill that subsidizes the coal industry is without a source. Please provide a reference to this bill as “climate change bill” is to vague for me to know which you mean.
Congress may wish to exercise its oversight authority with respect to implementation of the programs and policies in the act and their effectiveness in addressing U.S. economic and national security concerns. Among other potential oversight issues: the allocation of incentive funding among various types of chip manufacturing (e.g., logic chips and memory chips, mature chips and leading-edge chips); the adequacy of funding to meet the act’s objectives; and the effectiveness of guardrails established in the act to prevent the use of incentive funding from enabling further investments in countries of concern or from being used for stock buybacks or dividends.
My suggestion, for future reference, is that if you are going to make claims you source them. They will be much more forceful and factual and you won’t sound like you have vague feelings about something.
The president does have the ability to block legislation, it’s why you often hear it referred to the president signing various items into law.
My suggestion, for future reference, is that if you are going to make claims you source them. They will be much more forceful and factual and you won’t sound like you have vague feelings about something.
I think this is something I’ve come to realize about every candidate, even trump, when we get to the polls.Through 4 years - unless something specific stands out(like how Bush got to ride 9-11 sympathy 3 years later for reelection) most of their accomplishments and failures (especially the ones in the first 2 years) are hard to remember and require a primer before November.
“What did turnip do that was so bad in his first 2 years? Shit can’t remember, but he fucked up covid real bad and that’s enough to vote biden”
So yes its nice that he is refreshing us all on what actually had been accomplished to ensure we are all informed voting. Even if he is trying to be an ass about it.
It’s like half of the general population supports him, and the other half supports Biden. Who would have thought different opinions on the topic would arise in a public forum.
Okay fine. I’ll accept that. How do you know that he has 25% of the vote? Is there some other method other than polls to determine support? Genuinely curious what your logic behind the numbers are and where 25% comes from. I just feel like both sides are so entrenched in their opinions on their party that they can’t possibly think there are people who would support the other.
I’ll look but the article took how many registered voters and how many votes for trump and votes for Biden. Depending on what you are thinking, trump gets 25% if only 25% of registered voters vote for him.
But the article states in the last election trump had 48% of the popular vote with Biden at 52%. The polls last time were pretty even at around 50%. If the polls back then were accurate why would they no longer be accurate? Did a disproportionate amount of democrats get rid of land lines vs republican in the last 4 years?
They’re using the classic Republican move of encouraging abstaining from voting by highlighting Biden’s poor decisions. Trump’s supporters will vote him in if enough abstain. Inaction is action.
Yes it’s kind of mind-boggling. People pushed for decades and decades and decades for marriage equality. The Obama administration had no intention of tackling it at all. Until Joe Biden spoke. He’s literally one of the reasons we already have marriage equality. For however long we might keep it. Not to mention the nlrb union busting decision. Or the recent FTC abolishment of non-compete contracts for most people. There is no question that Biden is an outdated crusty old dumbass. Who may be far less Progressive or left-leaning than most of us would like. But he’s also ironically one of the most positively consequential presidents of the last 50 to 70 years since FDR.
The reason most people have no idea about all this. Is because they were all victories against the ownership / capital class. The ones who own all the major media. They may make a low-key passing mention of these victories. Then never bring it up again ever. But they will harp for days months and years about how some policy hurts businesses or “wealthy” americans. Manufacturing consent for their owners. It’s all by design. No one should get their information from publicly traded companies.
Here’s an easy decision… stop blocking the international community from pursuing diplomatic and economic remedies that would pressure Isreal to not commit genocide. Stop supplying military aide (potentially excepting the specialized hardware to maintain the iron dome).
Sounds like a pretty fucking easy solution…
Sounds like the Biden administration is taking a needlessly hard path just to appease AIPAC and similar foreign actors.
It’s important not to fall into a purely majority rule situation, but the Jewish community in America is divided on this matter… we can’t let the minority of a minority that’s in favor of this genocide steer international policy.
The entire bottom paragraph of what you said is entirely wrong. I support Palestine and stopping Israel, but a majority of Jewish people (62%) in the US are fine with the war and the direction it’s going in. As are most Americans. Your point of not having majority rule is true to some extent, but it’s hard to argue that while also knowing that not respecting Majority rule is how we got the first trump administration… Data
There are more non-Jewish Americans in support of Israel. Due to party loyalty and skewed right-wing media, 41% of Republicans think Israel is doing a good job and 24% think they should kill more Palestinians.
Weird to correct someone and then just add in an extra bonus fact that’s wrong. Unless you’re claiming “not sure” is “fine with”, which it isn’t. “Fine with” is “acceptable”.
About four-in-ten U.S. adults (38%) say Israel’s conduct of the war has been acceptable, and 34% say it has been unacceptable. The remaining 26% are unsure.
And more importantly, these aren’t random samples of the population. Dem/Lean Dem respondents said Israel’s conduct is unacceptable by 52-22.
It’s a bit more complicated I think and the polling is pretty close. Here’s a survey from about a month ago that puts the divide closer to 50/50. I suppose a better way to word my last paragraph is either “half a minority” or “a portion of a minority”.
I did want to highlight the Jewish community’s opinion though because I think the division there is extremely telling - and because I know the evangelical community is all in on genocide but, imo: they’re a bunch of fucking idiots, I don’t care what they think, and their opinions are irrelevant to politics because most of them will vote for Trump come hell or high water.
It’s not Jews, it’s Republicans that you need to look at. The US sees Israel as an investment first, a military base second, and a sovereign nation third.
I don’t disagree - but in terms of this election everyone who considers themselves a Trump republican is unswayable… but there are a lot of folks outraged at Netanyahu who may refuse to vote at all.
You’ll not hear any disagreements from me - but even here on lemmy you’ll find people who are planning to refrain from voting because they morally object to voting for someone who is supporting genocide. That’s a very fair morale stance in the abstract but in this case you’ve got two real choices and choosing not to vote is inviting even more death.
You’re right, and it’s sad. They really don’t understand how much worse it’ll be if they put their pride in front of the polls. I’m voting reluctantly out of fear of the repercussions of another Trump presidency, and I’m older than average on here. They have so much more to lose that won’t just “come back” with the next election.
Biden has to support Israel. It’s a centerpiece of us foreign policy for a reason; they want a friend in the region, and there is huge support from his constituents. It’s basically politically impossible to say no.
We don’t need Isreal as a strategic partner - we’re on good terms with the UAE, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and generally good terms with Turkey, Oman and Iraq - Isreal isn’t foundational to American security, America is foundational to Isreali security.
You say that, but americas actions paint a totally diffedifferent picture. They are joined at the hip with Israel and that isn’t going to change easily.
That isn’t for strategic reasons though… it’s because most Americans want a peaceful Isreal to exist (partially because the holocaust was awful, partially because we’ve got a large jewish population, partially because we like underdogs and partially because racism) and the fact that Isreal is inciting violence is just now reaching some people. I think public opinion is moving hard away from Isreal but, historically, most Americans supported giving them outrageous levels of aide.
Nobody needs a friend so badly that they’re justified in making friends with a genocidal maniac. I understand that Israel has been a long-term investment, but the amount of human suffering going on right now vastly outweighs any lamentations about sunk cost. What this country needs is a president willing to show that he cares about preventing suffering above all else. Doctors take an oath to both do good and do no harm - it’s time for our presidents to do the same, and be held to it to the same degree.
There is no way that murdering top Iranian officials in an Iranian embassy on Syrian soil was ever going to be anything but a gauntlet thrown down. If it was almost any other country than Israel the world would be outraged. Countries like the USA and Germany didn’t pull support because of things like destroying hospitals and killing innocents, so bombing the embassy of a country as reviled as Iran inside Syria wasn’t going to stop them.
Netanyahu knows his days in power are done very shortly after Israel leaves a condition of all-out war. Biden has told him that, his polls tell him that, and protestors tell him that. I think he’s poking the local bears to escalate and stay in power by extending the conflict. Both Biden and Trump have promised support so Netanyahu is acting with the backing of the world’s largest military no matter who wins. Pulling the USA and other Western countries into another war in the Middle East is his best bet of pushing that day of reckoning way down the road.
This was a completely blatant provocation in order to move the theater to Iran and keep the war footing going. If Iran were smart, they’d make a quick foray to quiet home pressure then just pull back and let Bibi wind down and face his corruption trial if he gets forced out of leveling Gaza because of international condemnation.
Israel, you can do better than this prick. Get your shit together or you’re going to get left to your own devices and the rest of the world will just come in and pick up the pieces afterwards.
I must admit my own ignorance about South American parallels, but I’m legitimately interested. I wouldn’t ask you to do my research for me, but do you have a good starting point to recommend?
Nonono don’t do it!!
Just look how it went in Germany, they went from 40 to 35 and then last year they overtook Japan as the 3rd largest economy in the world.
But if they had kept 40 hour work week, they might have done that a year earlier.
I tell you 32 hour work week will be an absolute disaster, marriages will break because people will have time to spend together. This is why the christian right will oppose this tooth and nail, and you should too.
I’ll tell you hwat. 32 hour work week will be an absolute disaster, marriages will break because people will have time to spend together. This is why the christian right will oppose this tooth and nail, and you should too.
Economist who chose to remain anonymous due to fear of liberal cancel culture.
Them being cancelled because they said something dumb doesn’t mean they weren’t cancelled. But I’m convinced economists can’t be cancelled, Jonathan Gruber and Paul Krugman proved that.
The drones might have time to think and get ideas above their station. Next thing you know, they’ll start objecting to being maximally exploited at every turn! Letting them off the leash, even a little, will have disastrous effects for their owners, I tell you!
I agree with the sentiment. But the case with Germany and Japan wasn’t so much Germany overtaking but rather Japan sloping down (Japan’s strict working hours/culture probably played a part in this though).
Absolutely, wood pellets and stoker furnaces are brilliant, as they work very well, and is a near CO2 neutral source of heat.
We do that too here in Denmark 7th richest country in the world, and I bet they also do in Norway and Switzerland, the 2nd and 3rd richest countries in the world.
We have both stoker furnace for central heating and a windowed stove in the living room for traditional firewood. The brilliance with the stove is that it has higher energy utilization than any other heat source. And it creates hygge in the living room in the long cold winter evenings.
I am in Germany, how do I get a 35 hour work week without working part time? Every contact I’ve ever had has said 40 hours, not including breaks, with an expectation of overtime going up to 50 hours (legal maximum) unpaid.
OK now I’m confused, because I was pretty sure Germany introduced 35 hour work week already in the 90’s, just like Denmark reduced to 37.5 hours.
Here the 37.5 is actually the norm for full time work. I thought it was 35 in Germany, but I can’t even find anything on the introduction of 35 hours in the 90’s ???
But apparently the AVERAGE which is a completely different measure, is 34.2 in 2020.
They LITERALLY WROTE DOWN that they did not want this. WTAF?
The Establishment Clause: Found in the First Amendment, it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion over another. It has been interpreted to mean that there should be a separation of church and state, preventing the government from promoting or endorsing religious beliefs or practices. 2. The Free Exercise Clause: Also in the First Amendment, this clause says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that the government cannot pass laws that target specific religious practices or beliefs and cannot hinder individuals from practicing their religion freely.
I always heard the argument that the founders did not want a Christian based nation because they saw the chaos in the UK with Catholics fighting Protestants, vice versa and every time a monarch ascended from the opposite side it was the axe for you all of a sudden.
They were probably mostly Christian though, at least outwardly, and so wrote the constitution with Christianity informs ideals and morals.
That said, separation of church and state is a good thing. Anyone arguing they actually wanted a Christian nation is intentionally ignorant (or a fucking idiot).
So idk if “we the people” is intentionally rejecting God as much as it’s rejecting the king.
Most of them, at least the ones most responsible for drafting the Constitution, were deists, as was common for intellectuals during the Enlightenment. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Monroe were all deists. They generally accepted that Jesus existed and he brought great wisdom of the world but they also questioned his divinity. And even the professed Christians, like Adams, were heavily influenced by progressive Unitarian principles, which did not believe in religious supremacy over government.
Jefferson was so unconvinced of Christ’s divinity that he edited the New Testament down to what he considered to be the wisdom and took out all of the supernatural elements.
Likely they were also considering the 30 years war, especially with a few of the colonies having explicitly been founded as religious settlements, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Mass especially.
I mean just look at early politics. There were many factions that went to other parts of the colonies to establish their own religious center. But others wanted to keep it separate. This is well documented in so many colonies.
I’m not defending the argument below. It is patently stupid.
I have heard people make the argument that the founders didn’t expect non-christian religions to become prominent in the US. That they thought they were only protecting the right of people to practice any kind of christianity they want to practice.
They think that the founders didn’t have enough forethought to realize that people of other faiths might migrate to the US or even the presence to realize that there were already non-christian faiths being practiced in the colonies.
The Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796 by President John Adams:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Likely to protect the cop/department too, since he shot at his own car that already had a disarmed, detained suspect inside. He very nearly killed someone that was already a non-threat. If the body cam footage got out it might make people think their cops are negligent or improperly trained! /ghasp
It’s like a business. If the liability rests with their officer and they are afraid of a lawsuit causing significant political blowback they are going to take action against the officer to minimize their liability. Hearing about an officer doing something like this and then leaving the force means there is nothing left for them to take action for.
If he didn’t resign, perhaps it would be slightly harder for the chief a town over to hire the guy, but since he resigned he may have minimal marks on his record.
I’d bet a thousand bucks this guy gets another job as a cop within 1yr though.
Unless all these Gen Z kids actually fucking VOTE it won’t matter, because Boomers fucking do.
Oh, you think the choices are trash? Well fucking vote in the primaries then. Get involved at a local level, and start promoting candidates that represent you. Don’t just bitch and moan that the choice is between a codger and senile draft-dodger.
The reason nobody young is ever is involved with primaries is because it’s driven by corporate lobbyists. How are the youth supposed to get involved with that when they are competing against billions of dollars? The choices will always be trash until we end the lobbying. It doesn’t work with just promoting candidates that represent you. It involves massive sums of money that 99.9 percent of Americans will never touch.
Sanders came very close to winning the Democratic nomination two election cycles in a row, and his funding was largely individual donors, while Clinton and Biden were being funded by corporate interests. Sanders probably lost in 2016 because the DNC put it’s thumb on the scale; he lost in 2020 because many primary voters didn’t believe that he could win against Trump, and wanted a candidate that could peel away moderate Republicans. And that’s a national level.
At a local level, there’s a lot less money, so fucking start there, where it’s not being driven by greed.
Sanders came very close to winning the Democratic nomination two election cycles in a row,
That is some revisionist history, because he did not. He did better than any openly socialist candidate has in 100 years, but because of the rules of the DNC was not actually in contention at any point.
When I was young, I participated in the primaries for Obama’s first election (Texas…). I was more or less put in my damn place by the older members and not allowed to have an opinion. It was Hillary this or that and racist comments otherwise. Seriously, Gen Y & Z need to participate, vote, and get involved at the primary and electoral college level or nothing is ever going to change. Don’t let those assholes decide who gets to run. I really really wonder what kind of impact those votes, in the areas that have true primaries, will have if we step up early.
Lobbyists are a crucial part of the political process as far as educating legislators and their staff. Legislators cannot possibly know the workings, let alone the body of statutory and case law at play, with every activity and industry legislatures have to regulate and facilitate.
Seems like you realize the money they spread around is the problem: bundlers, megadonors, super PACs, dark money, financial and agency disclosure laws, etc., that’s where we need to start reforms.
It’s unpopular, but yeah. Also, people forget that lobbying is, at it’s core, a group of citizens with a particular interest in a specific area banding together to try and convince a politician that what they want is the best course of action. If BLM started lobbying seriously like the NAACP does (or did; I don’t know how active they are now), they’d still be working for the same cause, and likely more effectively. Yeha, you need your ground game and people in the streets engaging in protests and demonstrations, but you also need people that will directly engage with lawmakers to get shit done.
People think of the NRA as nothing but a national organization working at the federal level, but for a long time–before they really started to suck under Wayne LaPierre–they did a ton of work with lobbying at the local level, and actively worked for what their membership wanted.
Nothing changes because the people that say they want real, significant change never show up in enough numbers to get shit done. If gen Z really gives a shit, then they need to all get out and fucking work for it. I’ve voted in every election and every primary I’ve been eligible to, since turned 22. If 100% of the gen Z kids that are eligible to vote showed up to the primaries, they could get any candidate through that they wanted. Primaries typically attract far, far fewer voters than the general election does; in some states, primary participation is as low as 3% or eligible voters.
I think that one thing that would help is if your employer was required to give you paid time-off to vote in primary, local, state, and national elections, say, four hours of time, but only if you actually voted. I’ll bet voting rates woudl skyrocket.
Believing that nothing has changed is the most privileged form of cynicism in these threads. At ever conceivable time scale, there is plenty of progress.
There will never be a utopia. There will always be something to improve.
RIght, people just need to pick up a book and look at statistics on racism, sexism, etc and realize it’s better than it ever has been but the MAGAs are on the rise, panicking, and trying to set up a dictatorship with Trump, so go vote or lose it all.
Vote. Seriously. (If practical: get involved, too). The U.S. is currently in the middle of a large shift of generational power.
Many of these changes are fairly recent:
2020 was the first federal election where the Baby Boomers didn’t make up the largest voting generation.
It was only in 2016 that the number Gen X and younger voting numbers grew larger than the boomer and older numbers.
Those numbers had been possible since 2010. Despite having more eligible voters (135M vs 93M), the “GenXers and younger” only had ~36M actual voters, compared to ~57M older ones.
Looking forward, the numbers only get better for younger voters. There hasn’t been a demographic shift like this in the U.S. in a long time (ever?). The current power structures can not be maintained for much longer. It is still possible for that shift to be peaceful. Please encourage the peaceful transfer: vote. Vote in the primaries. Maybe even vote for better voting systems. This time is unique, but change takes time. Don’t let them fool you otherwise: that’s just them trying to hold on to their power.
2020 had very flexible early voting and absentee voting and many people weren’t going to work in person anyway.
Every prior year, being retired was a huge advantage for ability to go to the polling places and actually vote. It’s easy to see how retirees would be represented disproportionately given that reality.
Bud, that’s politics. Our hope is to get these young kids engaged and then send them off to a law school that focuses on public interest law and restorative justice, instead of churning out more corporate defenders.
Growing up I’d here this phrase that I thought was some lawyer joke, “first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers.”
I realize now it’s not a joke, but part of a fascist’s plan to legalize atrocity.
If enough young people are showing up in the primaries, then the DNC can’t easily silence them without also alienating all of their other constituents. And while the DNC wants and needs large corporate donors and PACs, they need people voting for them even more. That’s why Sanders was so dangerous to them; if he had won the 2016 or 2020 primaries, despite the DNC openly hobbling him, he would have upended their internal power structure. (And the 2020 primaries were relatively fair; Biden was seen as a safe and moderate candidate by a large number of moderates who were more worried about beating Trump than getting a more liberal Democratic candidate.)
I agree there’s a history of young people not voting, but every presidential election year there’s a whole group of kids who were 14 at the time of the last election but are 18 for the current one.
Every four years since I can remember, that group of kids has been increasingly engaged politically, I think recent YouGov polls on this have been like very high, like 75% intend to vote and of those like 85% intend to vote more liberal candidates.
Trump was so bad, for everyone. Everyone remembers Trump’s wanton child separation policy, his partisan Supreme Court picks, his COVID failures, and his constant lies and vitriol. Even small children can see Trump for what he is, maybe even with more clarity than most adults. Point, people who were ten years to seventeen years old at the beginning of Trump’s presidency are eligible voters now. The Republicans see this tsunami coming at them. TV news has been calling it a blue wave to scare up red voters, but it’s really a youth wave.
At the same time, older conservative voters are dying off. Republicans know they will never fairly win another popular presidential election. Their plan is to steal the White House with lawfare or outright terrorism.
Just be warned, not everyone thinks Trump was bad. A lot of people look at their economic situation prior to the pandemic, and think that it was pretty good, and so Trump must be okay. Sure, he raised taxes on the middle and lower class, but that was sold as a tax cut (…except that it was very, very temporary), and the hike went into effect under Biden.
But if you want to win elections, that’s what you have to contend with. You have to accept that no everyone is going to see things the way you do, and you need to convince them. If you aren’t trying, then you lose.
I live in the rural south. TBQH, I’d rather that most of the people around me didn’t vote, since I’m pretty sure I know which way they’re going to vote, and their votes will largely be to take away my rights.
This 1000%. A bunch of bullshit from all sides, all these “ought to’s” and a bunch of malarkey will get tossed around. The election will get won by Biden or Trump, and all this will just turn into the same thing it always does…empty promises and a shit ton of money getting made at the top while we’re all fucked.
Real change won’t happen by voting for it, it’s when billionaires find their heads in baskets staring up at the axe/guillotine/whatever that just cut their fucking heads off. Eat the rich.
The “Guillotine the rich” crowd sure loves saying they wanna do it but they never have the balls. You talk of politician “ought to’s” yet here you and many others are not executing billionaires. Put up or shut up.
Real change won’t happen by voting for it, it’s when billionaires find their heads in baskets staring up at the axe/guillotine/whatever that just cut their fucking heads off. Eat the rich.
That’s a message to show support and willingness. I can’t pull it off myself, but if more people are aware and willing, the future is bright.
Everyone will talk about it, nobody will do anything to improve the situation.
Once you reach the ranks of the Senate, you have more financial interest in the future of your REIT-heavy investment portfolio than the price any of your constituents are paying for housing. Hell, more than a few Senators come straight from the halls of Wall Street themselves. That’s how they have the kind of surplus cash to run for office to begin with.
Yeah, people keep saying things like this, and then just completely ignore that their view is led us down a 40-year path where our liberty and economic power has dwindled progressively with each passing election.
Our viable parties are shit because our electoral system is shit.
The 100 year path of wishful thinking that single person who votes will suddenly change their behavior such that they won’t vote strategically hasn’t got us anywhere. Our electoral system needs reform. It is inherently biased to make 3rd parties fail every single time. The game is rigged for 2 parties and only 2 parties.
and then just completely ignore that their view is led
It would help if third parties would do something other than put a candidate up for President every 4 years, fail, and then disappear for the next 4 years. That’s a waste of everyone’s time, money, effort, and votes. Parties that do this should be looked on with suspicion.
Get people into city councils, school boards, and county comptroller. Work up to state level government. There is tons of good to be done at that level of government–in many ways, far more than the White House could ever do.
Voters do not have a viable way of holding them to their promises, because letting Republicans win is unacceptable. A good third party would help that, but they’re all busy trying to get into the White House and failing.
All you do by voting for a 3rd party in a FPTP election is take a vote away from the major party you are most closely aligned to. You may as well just not vote
As much as people are disenfranchised the two parties are not the same. One is conservative, and the other is trying to create a authoritarian theocracy.
One is trying to create an authoritarian theocracy, and the other is collaborating in that effort either overtly or by inaction. They are functionally the same.
our liberty and economic power has dwindled progressively with each passing election
That’s as much a consequence of legalisms - Bush v Gore invalidating votes in swing states, Tom DeLay kicking off a big wave of legislative gerrymandering, candidates party-flipping starting in the White Flight of the 80s/90s (WV’s governor flipped the day after the '17 election), the banning of earmarks in legislatures and the legalizing of unlimited campaign donations following Citizens United - as voting patterns.
So much power has been consolidated within the hands of party leadership and so much money has flown to affiliated party-loyal business interests that voting no longer shapes political behaviors. When Republicans can’t win an HISD board seat, they turn to the governor to simply take over the entire board by fiat. When someone in the Democratic Primary attempts to unseat an incumbent, the party spends tens of millions to defend them. When a third party bid emerges, they’re cut out of debates and excluded from news coverage save for the yellow journalism designed to dismiss you as a crank. (And, in fairness, there are tons of cranks in the 3rd party scene already).
I don’t think you can strictly attribute this to “not enough 3rd party bids”. We have consolidated political power in the same way we’re consolidating economic power.
There’s quite a few southern states that use runoff voting. Their state legislatures are just as filled with the big two parties as everywhere else. Additionally, the US is not alone in favoring FPTP voting, but many of those other countries still have third parties that are viable in individual regions (Canada and UK, for example). The US is unique in how the big two parties are dominant everywhere at every level.
People focus a lot on FPTP, but it’s not the only factor at work.
Yeah it absolutely isn’t the only factor, but it’s one of the biggest ones. I neglected to point out it isn’t the only factor.
After FPTP issues, the next biggest one in my mind is the spending rules. I think that all candidates should operate from a “shared pool” of election funds. So if candidate A wants to use 1 million for the election, half of it goes to them, half of it goes to their opponent. No candidate should have a higher spending fund from another. It would drive down campaign spending, make bullshit political ads less frequent, and add a degree of fairness.
That, and there needs to be a full ban on lobbying (read bribery).
As for the few elections in southern states that use run offs, that’s not quite what I’m looking for, and those elections aren’t in a vacuum. The political power the two parties get from surrounding areas is enough to mean 3rd parties still don’t have a chance.
Our current electoral system is inherently biased against 3rd parties.
That’s true until it isn’t. Year-over-year, the nation can only support two parties nationally and one dominant party state-by-state. But which party (and which coalition of leaders) hold power can change in wave years, particularly when strong third party campaigns force rival parties to cater to the independent vote to get over the 50% hump.
There’s a podcast called Hell of Presidents that does a great job of documenting the rise and fall of state party organs and their impact on the national scene. The rapid collapse of the Federalists, the rise of the Jacksonian Democrats, the collapse of the Whigs and emergence of the Republicans, the rise and fall of democratic socialists, and the emergence of liberal progressives, movement conservatives, libertarians, and neoliberal democrats all begin with third party bids in small states.
While we don’t have more than two distinct parties in the US, we absolutely do have factions within the main two parties that have regionalized and polarized constituencies that are fighting for control of the national party apparatuses. Even setting aside guys like Trump and Sanders, just check out Nebraska’s Indie dark horse contender Dan Osborn, whose union organizing is putting him ahead of both party candidates.
when strong third party campaigns force rival parties to cater to the independent vote to get over the 50% hump.
I’m not saying 3rd parties have zero influence, but they just don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair. The spoiler effect is far too strong for that to happen.
we absolutely do have factions within the main two parties that have regionalized and polarized constituencies that are fighting for control of the national party apparatuses.
Absolutely. But because of the spoiler effect, the two parties are held together with glue. Reforming our electoral system would weaken that glue, and hopefully fracture them enough to make a difference.
they just don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair
Statistically speaking, the majority of campaigns are going to fail. There’s one seat and, unless it is uncontested, a minimum of one losing candidate. But politics isn’t a one-and-done game. Its a game of coalition building and expanding name recognition. Starting off as a third party candidate, establishing a message and a political brand, and then canvasing your neighborhood to build up your appeal is fundamental to most successful politicians.
But because of the spoiler effect
The spoiler effect only matters to losers. If you’re the guy with the plurality of support, you’re in the best position to win.
Sometimes, the winning move is simply to carry the banner of the dominant political party (which is why you’ll have a dozen people compete for the Texas GOP gubernatorial nomination while only two or three bother trying to run as Dems). But other times, it really is about issues-based politics and name recognition.
Schwarzenegger was able to win in California by being a famous popular guy. Sanders won in Vermont by being a high profile well-respected mayor of the state’s biggest city. Joe Lieberman lost his primary but held onto his Senatorial seat back in 2006 by rallying the Democratic Party leadership around him even after he’d lost the state party nomination.
Bush beat Gore in 2000 not because of a Green Party spoiler effect (Nader actually pulled more Republicans than Democrats in the state) but because he had die-hard conservative activists willing to risk jail to shut down the recount with the Brooks Brothers’ Riot, while Al Gore’s party just kinda shrugged and gave up as soon as the Republican-leaning SCOTUS sided with the Republican candidate. Hell, the 2000s were awash with caging, disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, and outright election stealing from the top of the ballot to the bottom. Third parties didn’t have anything to do with that.
Statistically speaking, the majority of campaigns are going to fail.
That wasn’t quite what I was getting at. Roughly half of all positions are democrat held, the other half republican held. 3rd parties make up such a small percentage of the existing seats, hence the “they don’t succeed frequently enough for it to be called fair” statement.
The spoiler effect only matters to losers.
Not really. Take the green party for instance. They definitely don’t align with the democrats, but they can at least agree on some things, where as them agreeing with republicans is far, far more rare. So it is in the interest of green voters that green politicians get voted in most, followed by democrat politicians, then republican.
But when they split the vote due to the spoiler effect, it ends up meaning the worst of the worst options gets voted in, a republican. And that should matter to the 3rd party losers.
Third parties didn’t have anything to do with that.
They don’t have to. The threat of splitting the vote is more than enough for everyone to vote strategically, which means 3rd parties don’t get any votes.
Roughly half of all positions are democrat held, the other half republican held.
Its more 55/45, as Republicans dominate the rural sectors with a plurality of smaller seats while Dems dominate the large-pop singular seats. Even then, the real balance of power is in the financing of races, with local business magnets and special interest groups dictating the nominees of both major parties. Down in Houston, for instance, the candidates that consistently win the mayorship have to first win the endorsement of either the police or fire departments (ideally both), as these organizations command popular prestige, enormous campaign war chests, and a large body of active canvasers who will work on your campaign’s behalf. Similarly, everyone kowtows to the oil and gas industries.
Introduce an independent candidate for mayor, and that candidate will still need to suck up to O&G, fire, and police in order to win the race. And, once in office, they’ll be constrained just like either of the two major party’s preferred candidates would be.
Go up to the Rust Belt and you’re bowing to the interests of the automotive industry. Take a stab at politics on the West Coast and you’re going to need to cater to Silicon Valley. Everyone running for office on the Atlantic Seaboard is keenly aware of the clout enjoyed by the investment banks, the real estate magnets, and the DC bureaucracies. Add a modern-day Ross Perot to your list of candidates and you’re still juggling these interest groups in order to win.
Take the green party for instance. They definitely don’t align with the democrats, but they can at least agree on some things, where as them agreeing with republicans is far, far more rare. So it is in the interest of green voters that green politicians get voted in most, followed by democrat politicians, then republican.
But when they split the vote due to the spoiler effect, it ends up meaning the worst of the worst options gets voted in, a republican. And that should matter to the 3rd party losers.
Except you’re assuming people are choosing to vote D, R, or G and then ranking their preference. In truth, you’ve got a substantive pool of voters who simply do not turn out when they don’t like who is on the ballot. Turnout in the US rarely breaks 60% of the eligible base. But when it does, you can see establishment candidates falter behind insurgents.
At that point, the Ds and Rs will court you for your membership in their party. And because they have far more to offer than a Green Party leadership, more viable candidates tend to be attracted to the Big Two parties. Greens (and Libertarians and other niche parties) are stuck with candidates who can’t get onto the D or R ticket via a primary or appointment.
If you have a candidate that is genuinely popular and generates a ton of organic enthusiasm - a guy like Trump, who bounced from Reform Party to Dem Party and then on to the GOP unsuccessfully for decades, before catching fire among anti-Obama anti-immigrant conservatives - then that candidate is going to dramatically increase voter participation and win regardless of which party they run under. Similarly, Obama was able to undercut Hillary in the '08 primary by dramatically boosting turnout, particularly in states where Hillary failed to campaign aggressively. So Tennessee and South Carolina and Georgia went to Obama in landslides, undercutting Hillary’s thinner margins in California and New York and Florida.
Obama could theoretically have run as an Independent candidate for Senator of Illinois and won (in large part thanks to the Republican incumbent flaming out in a sex scandal), then challenged the Top 2 for the Presidency. But why do that when you can run inside the party apparatus and fall back to a cabinet position or VP slot if you lose?
The spoiler effect doesn’t come into play, because the people who have the most viable campaigns get absorbed by the bigger parties. That’s why Sanders and Angus King caucus with the Democrats and even run as Democrats on the Presidential ballot.
As another case-in-point, consider Dan Osborn, an Indie currently being courted by the Democratic Party entirely because he polls so well against sitting Senator Deb Fisher.
The way you change that is election reform. Not thoughts and prayers and spoiler votes when one of the 2 big parties is running a wannabe-dictator.
Think, if fools in Florida didn’t vote 3rd party in 2000 you’d never have bush or the war in iraq, and we might have given a shit about global warming.
Can’t even get DC statehood with a Dem majority and Presidency. Couldn’t do it when we had a 60 vote supermajority in 2008. We’re certainly not going to get it through the courts, given how the SCOTUS is stacked.
Think, if fools in Florida didn’t vote 3rd party in 2000 you’d never have bush or the war in iraq
The majority of green party votes came from registered Republicans. 2000 was decided by mass deregistering, disenfranchisement, and intimidation of the state’s black voter population, combined with the Brooks Brothers Riot that halted the ballot counting long enough for the conservative SCOTUS majority to certify the election in Bush’s favor.
Please, tell me you’re a child who knows nothing about the US electoral system without telling me. People like you got us Trump
Too much of a baby to read and understand the spoiler effect that comes with FPTP? Too impatient and short-sighted to push for election reform (RCV or approval voting) and just want some low effort immediate option that requires nothing more than casting a vote? Child. Democracies require effort to survive.
You’re looking at 3rd party votes in the wrong light.
They’re an effective means of voicing discontent with the candidates from the two largest party. Unlike the third of Americans who don’t vote 3rd party votes demonstrate a willingness to go out and vote along with their discontent in the platform of the two largest parties.
We aren’t going to get RCV by just waiting for it to happen. It’ll take actual work.
And calling people who have different opinions from you on the Internet ‘child’ isn’t going to get them to agree with you.
In fact, we’ve already passed more regulations recently in the form of Safer Communities Act, as well as reimplementing the Obama Era mental health screening that was removed under the Trump Admin. Sure, it’s not a renewal of the Assault Rifle Ban, but it’s something.
A great deal of the Safer Communities Act is simply sending more money to municipal and state police budgets. Given the sway these organizations have in electing state and local leaders, its certainly something.
“remove our 2A rights” is a weird way to phrase “regulating gun availability to make it harder for people who intend to use them to kill people to get them.” you know the text of the second amendment includes the phrase “well-regulated,” almost as if they did not intend for gun availability to be the lawless wasteland that it currently effectively is.
I’m sure that if federal legislation is passed all these fascist militias made up of racists, theofascists, and law enforcement officers will all willingly give up their firearms and comply with the law 🤡.
I get it, it’s not ideal, but that ship has sailed. Additional gun regulations only pass in blue states, and only further weaken our defensive posture. If you truly believe trump and his retarded followers represent an existential threat to democracy in the US (as I do) I cannot understand why you wouldn’t understand the necessity for access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed firearms, unless maybe you think Jon Stewart is gonna come rescue you with a witty quip when some fascist has you on your knees in front of a ditch.
You should start believing conservatives when they tell you what kind of America they want to live in and what they’re willing to do to get there, cause although they’re fucking morons, they’re also dead fucking serious.
Your rifle isn’t going to protect you. Did guns stop the war on drugs? Did guns stop the Patriot act? Did guns stop the Japanese interment camps? Did guns stop Jim Crow? Did guns save the Natives? Did guns stop the anti-black city riots? Did guns end the robber barrons or the city bosses? Did it stop the attacks on Asians in San Francisco and New York last century or even two years ago?
Your gun means jack and shit. The biggest proof of that is you are not in front of a planned parenthood in Texas ready to battle with it.
Fun fact, my great grandfather, an immigrant from Mexico, worked on a large Japanese farm during WW2 as a foreman. When fearful citizens came for the Japanese my great grandfather took ownership of the property and kept it running during their detention. Upon their return he relinquished ownership, having kept everything in order all while continuing to pay himself the same wage.
The biggest proof of that is you are not in front of a planned parenthood in Texas ready to battle with it.
I’ve taken and thrown punches for my fellow POC and the queer community, I’ve been arrested in protest, and have stood in solidarity when members of my community have required defending. I’ve been shamed for my culture and where I come from, looked down and spit up on for being less than - and I can still hold my head up high and stand with dignity exactly because I’ve always chosen to ‘battle with it’.
You might consider this interaction the next time you accuse someone of inaction just because their experience and principles differ from your own.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.