How are they going to get around the filibuster without removing it? lol
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
How are they going to get around the filibuster without removing it? lol
Thank you. I'll keep voting -- and in a battleground state like mine, I can't afford otherwise -- but I can also recognize the promises of incrementalism means nothing when most of us will probably be dead when the courts flip fifty years from now. (Supposing, of course, that society hasn't already collapsed from climate change.)
No. It's clearly to vote green and accept the Republican winning
Engage with that Democrat and hammer them on their record. Call them, write letters, protest, get the word out on social media, and do what you can to push them to your side.
Remember when everyone was telling us "Hurrdurr, elect Biden now then push him to the left later."
Yeah, let's not keep that as a thought-terminating cliche' to quiet leftists who want better.
Let's actually do it.
Checking in for the last time and there's still infighting in this thread...
Hey peeps FYI the people on our side against these fascists are probably out in the streets, coordinating efforts, donating, and rallying others. They are not on their keyboards pointing fingers at each other.
Use your energy wisely and don't stress yourselves, we have a long fight ahead. I'm going to ignore this thread now
Hey peeps FYI the people on our side against these fascists are probably out in the streets, coordinating efforts, donating, and rallying others. They are not on their keyboards pointing fingers at each other.
Use your energy wisely and don't stress yourselves, we have a long fight ahead. I'm going to ignore this thread now
No one's saying this. Absolutely vote for candidates with the policies you support in primaries and every election where they have a chance. But if the choice is between a Republican and someone who doesn't prescribe to every one of your values, don't accept the Republican by not voting for their strongest opponent or not voting at all.
That's what you're saying but SpaceCrystal's first post was to stop voting. Then, later vote green
You said you thought the Democrats as a whole have too big of a tent as is. You said this in context of Democrats needing to be a "social justice party." But that's not what they need to be. Because if they do what you're advocating they'll keep losing. They need to be a bigger party than that!
You're the one who made quite the impressive leap to pro-life candidates when I said, "If you think the Democratic Party as it is today is "too fucking big," then you're pushing for nothing getting done and for Republicans to keep winning elections."
That doesn't automatically mean pro-life candidates. It means supporting candidates who will support abortion up to six weeks in certain states, 12 in others, and maybe those who are pro-life in very rare circumstances. The end result may even be a national bill that allows abortion up to six weeks (though I think, as a first attempt, more can be got), and while that's still not great, it's good, because it's better than the status quo! That'd be something to celebrate.
Yeah? Like where?
My city's Mayor has released a statement in response ot the overturning of Roe v. Wade in which he states "Men have absolutely no place deciding what women do with their bodies.": https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/new...nt-supreme-court-decision-overturn-roe-v-wade
My city's Mayor also took action today in an attempt to make it easier to access abortion in my city: https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/new...s-300000-abortion-and-family-planning-service
Here's some responses from the Baltimore City Council:
My city's Mayor also took action today in an attempt to make it easier to access abortion in my city: https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/new...s-300000-abortion-and-family-planning-service
Here's some responses from the Baltimore City Council:
It's wild that peoples expectations are so low that "help accomplish the agenda they campaigned on/fulfill the broader goals of their party" isn't considered a core part of the president's job.
I've always thought that a consumption strike could be similarly as effective--and more tenable--than a labor strike. It's hard to convince enough people to risk their livelihoods, and probably a lot easier to convince them to simply... spend less.
Abstain or significantly cut back on all discretionary spending. That means anything that's not housing, food, gas, etc. This country runs on consumption. If enough of us agreed to stop participating...
Abstain or significantly cut back on all discretionary spending. That means anything that's not housing, food, gas, etc. This country runs on consumption. If enough of us agreed to stop participating...
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one of three things:
1.) Vote real, actual progressives in,
2.) Vote 3rd party, or
3.) Start political movements (civil resistance, civil disobedience, mass general strikes, community solidarity building, mutual aid, etc.).
Those are the only real choices we have to eliminate this cycle.
See my post above to Coyote Stark.
Last edited:
I mean you're asking Obama to what? Have the national guard have snipers to Mitch McConnel's head? What do you think would have convinced McConnell at that point ?
Option 2 isn't a real option. Voting 3rd party is basically a vote for the Republicans.
It hands them the win. You have to do what Nepenthe said.
The Democratic Party as an apparatus has no interest in actually taking steps to uphold rights and improve lives. Individual politicians would lose their personal grasp on power, and that's a price too high to pay. So they will forever campaign on bold steps and follow through with none of them, then send out the donation emails. There are two Senators in the way now, but if they weren't there there would be two others. There would be another reason. This has been the case for as long as I've been politically conscious, because I guess campaign donations and influence are that fucking tasty.
There are so many people in this thread jumping down the throat of anyone posting the reality of the situation that so much evokes the crowd shouting "is this your first election!?!?!?" on Gaf when it was apparent that Clinton was going to lose on election night. Go ahead and say how much defeatist takes are what Republicans want, but the alternative is to ignore reality. Go ahead and vote D, as I will do this year and have done for decades. Maybe you won't be voting for a spineless monster, but either way it will do appallingly little to preserve the dwindling rights we already have. And none of this is taking into account the very real likelihood that in many places votes that Republicans don't like will be thrown out anyway.
There are so many people in this thread jumping down the throat of anyone posting the reality of the situation that so much evokes the crowd shouting "is this your first election!?!?!?" on Gaf when it was apparent that Clinton was going to lose on election night. Go ahead and say how much defeatist takes are what Republicans want, but the alternative is to ignore reality. Go ahead and vote D, as I will do this year and have done for decades. Maybe you won't be voting for a spineless monster, but either way it will do appallingly little to preserve the dwindling rights we already have. And none of this is taking into account the very real likelihood that in many places votes that Republicans don't like will be thrown out anyway.
Yep and Option 1 is only possible in primaries. Option 3 does nothing if republicans continue to win.
All he can basically do is continue to campaign on the party's agenda, and sign shit into law when it passes. A modern Democratic president has zero power or cache to influence the Republican Senate vote, let alone the Republican Majority leader of the Senate.
You have been confronted with a litany of specific things that electing democrats has done to help people tremendously, including on abortion access, yet you keep saying this.
Jesus Christ.
The point is helping people.
The point is helping people.
The point is helping people.
The point is helping people.
A general strike is effective because it takes money away from the elite, forcing them to choose a law or lose more money. As they are greedy, they will choose the law the general strike wants. There are many elected members who do as they are told by the elite because of bribing. It has been very effective in the past.
The problem with this is that it is entirely dependent on union membership so I don't believe it would be effective right now as union membership is still pretty low historically. Far more work is needed to be able to coordinate, and amass numbers that would cause the rich to truly worry. So, I don't believe it would work right now.
But generally, yes it is a genuine option.
1 and 2 are largely possible and responsible only in safely blue areas. Can't really do that in many parts of Pennsylvania or Florida. But can fly in Cali or NY.
3. Is easier said than done and ultimate requires people supporting the same things. Which would inherently be dicey in the very swingy or more conservative areas someone may be living in.
If you can shore up enough support to get a Green party candidate actually elected in a local race (they have no hope nationally) because they are better than the Democrat and Republican candidate, then do it. If not, then yeah, you're stuck hounding a shitty Democrat to be less shit. But it's something, and we need to start actually adding this civic behavior to our repertoire and hone various strategies.
How big? You want us to start electing actual Nazis so long as they have a D next to their name? What is the cut-off for you if "protecting civil rights" is negotiable for you as a party maxim?
Because you said that in response to me specifically saying that specifically pro-life candidates shouldn't be in the party. What else did you think I was talking about in a thread about Roe v. Wade being overturned?
What if the Democrat on the ballot is in a region where any kind of abortion exception is non-negotiable, or they legitimately believe as such, and thus, they come out as pro-life? Again, that Big Tent. It's gotta be even bigger!
Once again, if you're admitting we have a lot of conservatives attached to us, then that's a fundamental flaw of today's Democratic Party and an admittance that voting for all Democrats doesn't necessarily ensure your rights will be protected.
Last edited:
Is talking about "the economy" and gas prices shrinking their tent? Do you think everyone who will be voting for Republicans this November will be doing it because they're against abortion or trans rights? Fox News literally distracted their viewers last month when the decision leaked by not talking about it and focusing on anti-Biden stuff.
Y'all should be rioting but go make some quirky signs to try and go viral again I guess
Explain how throwing your vote behind a candidate that can't win isn't helping the Republicans.
Fuckin' I dunno man, I'm not the president. I'm not saying it's easy, but if you're going to take the job that's part of it.
When talking about Green Party, it's important to keep in mind they've been bankrolled by Republican organization and PACs in the past
apnews.com
Montana Republicans bankrolled Green Party ballot access
Officials say the Montana Republican Party bankrolled the signature-gathering effort to get the Montana Green Party certified for the 2020 ballot.
apnews.com
The President is in the White House and Congress is in the Capitol. These are different buildings so they can't actually influence one another.
You don't understand politics
"Shrinking their tent" is turning McCain and Romney into outcasts. I don't know how else you can interpret that. The Republican agenda under The Trump Party is more lockstep than ever?
Mathematically, isn't it equivalent to a half vote for the Republican or something like that? I remember reading a calculation of it somewhere but I'm shit with math so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
Why do you all shame the Democrats for asking for money, while also acknowledging that we live in a capitalistic society and that includes our politics and the ability to get anything done?
Like, y'all bemoan the Democrats' ability to get anything done, then bemoan their attempts to build the funds...to get shit done.
I will never understand this. Decrying money in politics does not require hypocrisy.
Help try to do things? Sure, and Obama did that.
But force McConnell to call for a vote? That is explicitly a power the President purposefully does not have.
No, if you're going to criticize the actions of the President in a thread where people are discussing actionable steps, you don't get to lean on "I dunno, I'm not the President" when people call out your seemingly directionless apathy. You're either participating in the discussion, or you're not.
Let's say your the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and president trump has nominated a a hyper fascist judge. President needs you to bring the fascist for a vote. What could he do to get you to put them up for a vote? (My guess is nothing….) Mitch was never, ever going to put Garland up for a vote.
It's literally not part of the job, so maybe don't push for things that aren't within the basis of reality.
And if you have any actual ideas, put up or shut up. Plenty of other people are.
One could almost be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that the wealthy, privileged, male, white, slave-owning founding fathers of America weren't actually visionary geniuses who managed to frame a constitutional republic that would manage to evolve and reflect the values of America over future centuries.
Because they seem to spend the money they get sent on the dumbest strategies, abandoning downballot races to their own fundraising, and refusing to build the party in states they consider to be a lost cause
And even if it is some grand strategy that we cannot see and don't understand because it's some mystical realpolitik that only insiders could possibly get, it's not working. The leadership needs to be offering new plans, new messaging, new organizational principles. Something that looks like they understand that what's been tried so far hasn't been good enough.
Complaining about the Democrats' lack of accomplishments and then seriously suggesting that people vote for the party that has done even less than the fucking Libertarians is either stupid or malicious.
You dunno but you want it done!
That's sort how a small child thinks about the world around them.
1. Virginia isn't under "full" GOP control right now. While the state House and governor's mansion are GOP-controlled, the state Senate is still controlled by Dems.
2. CRT is not why the GOP won. It was bcause of a triple-whammy of Dems having a poor political environment, a crappy campaign that McAuliffe ran, and the GOP candidate putting up a facade of appearing "polite and moderate", something that some idiots, including the media, fell for.
You know full well I don't mean literally invoke some power to make proceedings behind.
I'm not going to keep responding to you if you assume something I haven't said and respond to that instead of what I actually wrote.
You never said anything about pro-life candidates. You said this in reply to a post about electing more Democratic senators, which doesn't inherently mean pro-life.
Right, and where is this happening? Specifically. Where at the Senate level?
On the contrary, they envisioned a hierarchal caste system that would last for literal centuries and be so baked into our social fabric that even folks in the lower castes or those who empathized with them would still be like "Yeah, this is the best we can do."
When you look at it like that, it's actually a pretty fucking genius system.
I really don't want you to keep responding to me.
Nothing to Lose: Uncontested Races in 2020 — BallotReady for Organizations
In 2020, 70% of races went uncontested. The winners didn't even have to compete. See where these occurred, and what you can do to prevent this in your community.
organizations.ballotready.org
Looks like about 75% of all partisan elections