He isn't saying anything that isn't obvious to me, nor—I expect—to anyone paying attention ... Democracy is dying in the US ... it's the Republicans' fault ... some Republican leaders need to step...
He isn't saying anything that isn't obvious to me, nor—I expect—to anyone paying attention ... Democracy is dying in the US ... it's the Republicans' fault ... some Republican leaders need to step up to at least start the process of fixing it ... and, currently at least, there isn't a snowball's chance of that happening.
But it's still nice to hear it said by a respected, Republican judge.
I don't see any way that this happens. The voting republican base is so far gone, they'll never vote for anyone who would dare work with a democrat. In my eyes, the only way out of our current...
the U.S. is in a "war" over the nation's democracy and that "only the party that instigated this war can end it," calling on the Republican Party to start a reconciliation process.
I don't see any way that this happens. The voting republican base is so far gone, they'll never vote for anyone who would dare work with a democrat. In my eyes, the only way out of our current mess is by adding house seats proportional to population, adding D.C as a state with 2 senators, and legislating voting rights. That would at least make the playing field a bit more level. Beyond that, the state of the current republican voters rests squarely on the shoulders of the far right media that infects people with hatred and lies.
I'd start to feel optimistic if they just passed those two voting rights bills that have been stranded in Congressional limbo for the past year. ... oh, and added a couple more seats in SCOTUS....
I'd start to feel optimistic if they just passed those two voting rights bills that have been stranded in Congressional limbo for the past year.
... oh, and added a couple more seats in SCOTUS.
... oh, and as long as I'm dreaming, limit every Senator to exactly one fillibuster, the use of which disqualifies her from re-election ... or something comparable.
I still vote for a filibuster that requires a hurculean feat to sustain at any length. Something like requiring all participants in the filibuster must be present in person. If they eat,sleep, or...
I still vote for a filibuster that requires a hurculean feat to sustain at any length. Something like requiring all participants in the filibuster must be present in person. If they eat,sleep, or leave the room they are removed from the process. The day's session does not end until the filibuster does. They must be standing and talking about the issue at hand, or are disqualified.
If you're gonna take a stand against a popular vote, which could in theory be a good thing to make a point, it should be something that would be impossible to sustain for more than a few days, and certainly exacts a physical toll on the participant in question.
Dunno why in particular they listed it but Costa Rica is a pretty well run country. Stable democracy, highly educated, diversified economy and no military.
Dunno why in particular they listed it but Costa Rica is a pretty well run country. Stable democracy, highly educated, diversified economy and no military.
Yeah, all of those reasons. Probably the best country in that North/Central/South America region that is close to Puerto Rico. Also, Costa Rica has famously built a national economy almost...
Yeah, all of those reasons. Probably the best country in that North/Central/South America region that is close to Puerto Rico.
Also, Costa Rica has famously built a national economy almost entirely on well-curated eco-tourism, aggressively working to preserve and maintain their natural spaces, and make money off of them in a very eco-friendly manner. I respect that.
Also, I kinda like that their names are similar, but that's just me.
While it's definitely respectable, I think that's significantly underselling Costa Rica economically, tourism is only 5% of their GDP, they also have a lot of high value-add manufacturing of...
Also, Costa Rica has famously built a national economy almost entirely on well-curated eco-tourism, aggressively working to preserve and maintain their natural spaces, and make money off of them in a very eco-friendly manner. I respect that.
While it's definitely respectable, I think that's significantly underselling Costa Rica economically, tourism is only 5% of their GDP, they also have a lot of high value-add manufacturing of things like microprocessors, fiber optics and medical equipment. My last computer's processor (i7-2600k) was actually made in Costa Rica.
I strongly share the sentiment expressed by this article, but how many stories do we see weekly that fit this format: Former [JOB_TITLE] says that [COUNTRY] is on the brink of...
I strongly share the sentiment expressed by this article, but how many stories do we see weekly that fit this format:
Former [JOB_TITLE] says that [COUNTRY] is on the brink of [COLLAPSE/TOTALITARIANISM] due to [BAD_MAN/POLICY]
<Rant/>
Do any of these articles ever sway ones position? Will a boomer hang up his MAGA hat for good because an ex-staffer wrote an op-ed? Do voters already educated on the issues learn any new information from yet another $(JOB_TITLE) condemning $(COUNTRY)?
Anecdotally, I feel like I fall for these articles, and am constantly mislead.
How many times were we just on the precipice of the Trump administration completely crumbling 2017-2020? That there's conclusive proof of Trump personally being involved in election interference? How many times has yet another ex-staffer or whatever told us that everything is about to change because of X? Hell, just this year, how many former Russian generals, business leaders, and oligarchs have come out to tell us that Russia is on the brink of collapse, or that Putin is about to be deposed/replaced/die of cancer?
I'm not sure if I'm tired of being misled, or tired of feeling like nothing makes a difference. We did the thing; elected a Blue president, Blue Senate, and Blue house, and we are still losing on every front. Midterms look bad, and 2024 looks worse, and it feels like no one is coming to save us.
It's always former, too. The Republicans currently keeping the machine running keep their mouths shut and go along with it, and it's only once they're personally secure (or ready to advertise...
It's always former, too. The Republicans currently keeping the machine running keep their mouths shut and go along with it, and it's only once they're personally secure (or ready to advertise their tell-all book) that they say what's clear to everyone else.
Somehow, I feel like this is the mechanism that allows GOP operatives to support a career full of objectively terrible behavior: they can just say "orange-man was bad" in an interview after they...
Somehow, I feel like this is the mechanism that allows GOP operatives to support a career full of objectively terrible behavior: they can just say "orange-man was bad" in an interview after they retire and be fully rehabilitated in the liberal media's eyes.
Both parties serve capital. If the needs of the people are at odds with the desires of capital, only the smallest concessions possible to the people are made. You'll notice the handful of...
I'm not sure if I'm tired of being misled, or tired of feeling like nothing makes a difference. We did the thing; elected a Blue president, Blue Senate, and Blue house, and we are still losing on every front. Midterms look bad, and 2024 looks worse, and it feels like no one is coming to save us.
Both parties serve capital. If the needs of the people are at odds with the desires of capital, only the smallest concessions possible to the people are made. You'll notice the handful of exceptions tend to be villified the most.
Nobody will save us except ourselves. That, and there should be a lot less pressure on everyone collectively once the boomers die off. Not purely due to their politics, but because it'll free up an awful lot of housing just due to the size of their generation. Lets make sure we can get some proper estate taxes in place before they go.
How irreversibly will our climate be altered by that point? How many long-held rights that we secured a generation or more ago will be unraveled? I certainly agree that natural "attrition" of...
there should be a lot less pressure on everyone collectively once the boomers die off. Not purely due to their politics, but because it'll free up an awful lot of housing just due to the size of their generation. Lets make sure we can get some proper estate taxes in place before they go.
How irreversibly will our climate be altered by that point? How many long-held rights that we secured a generation or more ago will be unraveled? I certainly agree that natural "attrition" of boomers is going to help in the long run, but there's so much damage that can happen and is happening between now and then.
I'm not saying this is enough. It's a silver lining in an otherwise very dire situation. I have enough trouble convincing a "Democrat" that perhaps we need to regulate capital in a fashion to...
I'm not saying this is enough. It's a silver lining in an otherwise very dire situation.
I have enough trouble convincing a "Democrat" that perhaps we need to regulate capital in a fashion to reduce incentives to consume constantly.
That's not a good answer, and it's not why we're losing on every front (as the person you responded to said). We're losing on every front because there's such a slim majority in the Senate,...
Both parties serve capital. If the needs of the people are at odds with the desires of capital, only the smallest concessions possible to the people are made. You'll notice the handful of exceptions tend to be villified the most.
That's not a good answer, and it's not why we're losing on every front (as the person you responded to said). We're losing on every front because there's such a slim majority in the Senate, nothing can get passed. Just saying "both parties serve capital" sounds like a 16 year old who just read that and wants to spout it around. There's one party that consistently blocks any meaningful legislation from getting enacted, and there's one party that gets the majority of it's members to try and push the country forward. Are there corporate democrats? Sure, but most of them would vote yes for voting rights, or health reform, or environmental causes.
If democrats lose in 2022 and 2024 and we never get a fair election again, it's going to be because a chunk of voters decided that what democrats had to offer just wasn't quite good enough, so they stayed home and watched the entire democracy go in the trash.
It's a perfectly legitimate answer. I did not have the time to write out a thesis, and it would likely be a waste of time because others have done it far better. This is not some random...
It's a perfectly legitimate answer. I did not have the time to write out a thesis, and it would likely be a waste of time because others have done it far better. This is not some random 'Iam16andiamdeep' take. It's a well-established point, with substantial history. This letter from 1944 could well have been written today.
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
The democratic party has all the legislative power right now. This is their chance, they've been given the closest thing to a mandate as possible. Kill the filibuster, pack the supreme court, hammer through the legislation (green new deal, medicare for all, increased minimum wage), fix the tax bill of 2017 that's going to be putting on the hurt by 2024 (for which democrats will be blamed), and call it done.
Except they don't. They waffle about trying to cut to the barest of bare minimum concessions. "Oh but what of Manchain" or "But the Senate parlimentarian". A slim majority is still a majority, and their failure to act on it is a failing of taking the problem seriously. If your 'conservative wing' won't actually help you with the policy that is needed, they're not really on your team are they?
Nobody can rely on the politicians to save us. That's the real point. The process is too slow, there's too many monied interests. Even if the elections remain fair...how well has this served us over the past 20+ years since global warming alarm bells have been sounding? We've made some progress yes, but not remotely enough and there's been plenty of backpedling. The science is in
We need to cut off financing of all petroleum ventures now. We instead get platitudes and lies. We need to dump boatloads of spending into improving mass transit. To strengthen the EPA, not weaken it. None of these things will happen, at least not in any sort of timeline that matters.
Democracy as we imagine it has been dead for years. I recon it was the 2000 presidential election set the stage for everything that followed, and it was decided not by democratic vote, but by the courts.
How is a super slim majority anything even close to a mandate? They barely held on in the election - they were not given any sort of mandate - they were voted in as a rebuttal to the nonsense that...
This is their chance, they've been given the closest thing to a mandate as possible.
How is a super slim majority anything even close to a mandate? They barely held on in the election - they were not given any sort of mandate - they were voted in as a rebuttal to the nonsense that was donald trump.
Kill the filibuster, pack the supreme court, hammer through the legislation (green new deal, medicare for all, increased minimum wage), fix the tax bill of 2017 that's going to be putting on the hurt by 2024 (for which democrats will be blamed), and call it done.
They don't have the votes for any of that - some of it was tried, but a "slim majority is still a majority" doesn't hold true in the Senate.
If your 'conservative wing' won't actually help you with the policy that is needed, they're not really on your team are they?
I wish they would get on board, but they still push through judges and appointments.
Nobody can rely on the politicians to save us. That's the real point.
What are you advocating?
We need to cut off financing of all petroleum ventures now. We instead get platitudes and lies. We need to dump boatloads of spending into improving mass transit. To strengthen the EPA, not weaken it. None of these things will happen, at least not in any sort of timeline that matters.
That's a lot of stuff, and I agree it all needs to get done, but none of it will happen by giving up on voting and letting republicans run the show. What's your strategy here? Let democrats lose, and watch the whole thing burn down with the hope that somehow, someone, somewhere, will rebuild the whole thing in a way that better represents the people?
Bray argues for an intersectional antifascism that “has no tolerance for ‘intolerance.’” He refuses the liberal notion that, when an argument reaches an impasse, we must “agree to disagree” with fascists. Instead, he writes that the antifascist stance “is not against violence, incivility, discrimination, or disrupting speeches in the abstract, but against those who do so in the service of white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, class oppression, and genocide.” Thus antifascists are not interested in bridging the divide so that fascists can blend into a liberal veneer, but in disrupting their organizing by any means necessary. Bray writes, “We may not always be able to change someone’s beliefs, but we sure as hell can make it politically, socially, economically, and sometimes physically costly to articulate them.”
He isn't saying anything that isn't obvious to me, nor—I expect—to anyone paying attention ... Democracy is dying in the US ... it's the Republicans' fault ... some Republican leaders need to step up to at least start the process of fixing it ... and, currently at least, there isn't a snowball's chance of that happening.
But it's still nice to hear it said by a respected, Republican judge.
I don't see any way that this happens. The voting republican base is so far gone, they'll never vote for anyone who would dare work with a democrat. In my eyes, the only way out of our current mess is by adding house seats proportional to population, adding D.C as a state with 2 senators, and legislating voting rights. That would at least make the playing field a bit more level. Beyond that, the state of the current republican voters rests squarely on the shoulders of the far right media that infects people with hatred and lies.
I'd start to feel optimistic if they just passed those two voting rights bills that have been stranded in Congressional limbo for the past year.
... oh, and added a couple more seats in SCOTUS.
... oh, and as long as I'm dreaming, limit every Senator to exactly one fillibuster, the use of which disqualifies her from re-election ... or something comparable.
I still vote for a filibuster that requires a hurculean feat to sustain at any length. Something like requiring all participants in the filibuster must be present in person. If they eat,sleep, or leave the room they are removed from the process. The day's session does not end until the filibuster does. They must be standing and talking about the issue at hand, or are disqualified.
If you're gonna take a stand against a popular vote, which could in theory be a good thing to make a point, it should be something that would be impossible to sustain for more than a few days, and certainly exacts a physical toll on the participant in question.
Also add peurto rico.
Last I heard, PR still doesn't want to be a state ... and frankly, I don't blame them. Maybe Costa Rica would give them a (better) home.
Why Costa Rica of all countries?
Dunno why in particular they listed it but Costa Rica is a pretty well run country. Stable democracy, highly educated, diversified economy and no military.
Yeah, all of those reasons. Probably the best country in that North/Central/South America region that is close to Puerto Rico.
Also, Costa Rica has famously built a national economy almost entirely on well-curated eco-tourism, aggressively working to preserve and maintain their natural spaces, and make money off of them in a very eco-friendly manner. I respect that.
Also, I kinda like that their names are similar, but that's just me.
While it's definitely respectable, I think that's significantly underselling Costa Rica economically, tourism is only 5% of their GDP, they also have a lot of high value-add manufacturing of things like microprocessors, fiber optics and medical equipment. My last computer's processor (i7-2600k) was actually made in Costa Rica.
Crap, you're right. I mis-typed; meant their tourist economy, not their entire economy.
All those things generally apply to Iceland too... I think PR should become Icelandic.
I strongly share the sentiment expressed by this article, but how many stories do we see weekly that fit this format:
Former [JOB_TITLE] says that [COUNTRY] is on the brink of [COLLAPSE/TOTALITARIANISM] due to [BAD_MAN/POLICY]
<Rant/>
Do any of these articles ever sway ones position? Will a boomer hang up his MAGA hat for good because an ex-staffer wrote an op-ed? Do voters already educated on the issues learn any new information from yet another $(JOB_TITLE) condemning $(COUNTRY)?
Anecdotally, I feel like I fall for these articles, and am constantly mislead.
How many times were we just on the precipice of the Trump administration completely crumbling 2017-2020? That there's conclusive proof of Trump personally being involved in election interference? How many times has yet another ex-staffer or whatever told us that everything is about to change because of X? Hell, just this year, how many former Russian generals, business leaders, and oligarchs have come out to tell us that Russia is on the brink of collapse, or that Putin is about to be deposed/replaced/die of cancer?
I'm not sure if I'm tired of being misled, or tired of feeling like nothing makes a difference. We did the thing; elected a Blue president, Blue Senate, and Blue house, and we are still losing on every front. Midterms look bad, and 2024 looks worse, and it feels like no one is coming to save us.
It's always former, too. The Republicans currently keeping the machine running keep their mouths shut and go along with it, and it's only once they're personally secure (or ready to advertise their tell-all book) that they say what's clear to everyone else.
Somehow, I feel like this is the mechanism that allows GOP operatives to support a career full of objectively terrible behavior: they can just say "orange-man was bad" in an interview after they retire and be fully rehabilitated in the liberal media's eyes.
Both parties serve capital. If the needs of the people are at odds with the desires of capital, only the smallest concessions possible to the people are made. You'll notice the handful of exceptions tend to be villified the most.
Nobody will save us except ourselves. That, and there should be a lot less pressure on everyone collectively once the boomers die off. Not purely due to their politics, but because it'll free up an awful lot of housing just due to the size of their generation. Lets make sure we can get some proper estate taxes in place before they go.
How irreversibly will our climate be altered by that point? How many long-held rights that we secured a generation or more ago will be unraveled? I certainly agree that natural "attrition" of boomers is going to help in the long run, but there's so much damage that can happen and is happening between now and then.
I'm not saying this is enough. It's a silver lining in an otherwise very dire situation.
I have enough trouble convincing a "Democrat" that perhaps we need to regulate capital in a fashion to reduce incentives to consume constantly.
That's not a good answer, and it's not why we're losing on every front (as the person you responded to said). We're losing on every front because there's such a slim majority in the Senate, nothing can get passed. Just saying "both parties serve capital" sounds like a 16 year old who just read that and wants to spout it around. There's one party that consistently blocks any meaningful legislation from getting enacted, and there's one party that gets the majority of it's members to try and push the country forward. Are there corporate democrats? Sure, but most of them would vote yes for voting rights, or health reform, or environmental causes.
If democrats lose in 2022 and 2024 and we never get a fair election again, it's going to be because a chunk of voters decided that what democrats had to offer just wasn't quite good enough, so they stayed home and watched the entire democracy go in the trash.
It's a perfectly legitimate answer. I did not have the time to write out a thesis, and it would likely be a waste of time because others have done it far better. This is not some random 'Iam16andiamdeep' take. It's a well-established point, with substantial history. This letter from 1944 could well have been written today.
A more recent study finds:
The democratic party has all the legislative power right now. This is their chance, they've been given the closest thing to a mandate as possible. Kill the filibuster, pack the supreme court, hammer through the legislation (green new deal, medicare for all, increased minimum wage), fix the tax bill of 2017 that's going to be putting on the hurt by 2024 (for which democrats will be blamed), and call it done.
Except they don't. They waffle about trying to cut to the barest of bare minimum concessions. "Oh but what of Manchain" or "But the Senate parlimentarian". A slim majority is still a majority, and their failure to act on it is a failing of taking the problem seriously. If your 'conservative wing' won't actually help you with the policy that is needed, they're not really on your team are they?
Nobody can rely on the politicians to save us. That's the real point. The process is too slow, there's too many monied interests. Even if the elections remain fair...how well has this served us over the past 20+ years since global warming alarm bells have been sounding? We've made some progress yes, but not remotely enough and there's been plenty of backpedling. The science is in
We need to cut off financing of all petroleum ventures now. We instead get platitudes and lies. We need to dump boatloads of spending into improving mass transit. To strengthen the EPA, not weaken it. None of these things will happen, at least not in any sort of timeline that matters.
Democracy as we imagine it has been dead for years. I recon it was the 2000 presidential election set the stage for everything that followed, and it was decided not by democratic vote, but by the courts.
How is a super slim majority anything even close to a mandate? They barely held on in the election - they were not given any sort of mandate - they were voted in as a rebuttal to the nonsense that was donald trump.
They don't have the votes for any of that - some of it was tried, but a "slim majority is still a majority" doesn't hold true in the Senate.
I wish they would get on board, but they still push through judges and appointments.
What are you advocating?
That's a lot of stuff, and I agree it all needs to get done, but none of it will happen by giving up on voting and letting republicans run the show. What's your strategy here? Let democrats lose, and watch the whole thing burn down with the hope that somehow, someone, somewhere, will rebuild the whole thing in a way that better represents the people?