I'm sorry but you have to be the world's most naive person if you don't think the republicans will do exactly what regardless if you remove the filibuster now or not.
How are they going to get around the filibuster without removing it? lol
I'm sorry but you have to be the world's most naive person if you don't think the republicans will do exactly what regardless if you remove the filibuster now or not.
You know what the best way to prevent nihilism from winning out on days like today?
Honestly?
For people to just fucking stop trying to defend Democrats and just say sorry.
Admit that we lost- not only that we lost, but we failed several key demographics who rely on our ability to actually halt Republican tyranny because we had 50 fucking years of foresight, shore ourselves up like adults, and start discussing calls to action to resume the fight and get back what was taken from us.
The entire political apparatus is responsible for this result.
So why the fuck is anyone here carrying water for any of it?
You think someone with an unwanted or high-risk pregnancy trying to figure out what to do right now gives a fuck about the excuses on why they had to lose access to the care that could easily save their life? Why Obama couldn't do it? Why no one in these seats gave a shit until now?
No! Of course not!
They don't need excuses; they deserve an apology and a committed plan by our elected officials to fix this shit.
So again, you're admitting that voting for Democrats more wouldn't have solved this issue because the American landscape just isn't built for people's rights to be maintained.
No. It's clearly to vote green and accept the Republican winningSo what is your solution if you don't like the Democrat? Vote Republican?
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.So what is your solution if you don't like the Democrat? Vote Republican?
Your mindset of "We should just accept any congressman or congresswoman with a "D" by their name & deal with it!" is wrong, because that's how we get more corporate, neoliberal Democrats.
We should only be looking towards candidates who do truly care about us, such as progressives, as well as Green Party candidates. Local, state & federal.
That's what you're saying but SpaceCrystal's first post was to stop voting. Then, later vote greenEngage 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.
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!Point to where I said anyone who doesn't agree with me on everything cannot apply to be a Democratic candidate.
Yeah? Like where?Of course not.
I'm saying that we should be doing more to A.) elect less conservative candidates where we can,
BALTIMORE, MD. (Friday, June 24, 2022) - Mayor Brandon M. Scott released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
"Today the court has taken aim at women and their right to make fundamental health choices about their own bodies. This decision is especially harmful for Black Women and Women of Color who already face disparate health challenges and barriers to care. The court got it absolutely wrong again today. Men have absolutely no place deciding what women do with their bodies.
I promise to make sure Baltimore City is doing its part to maintain safe access to abortion services for our resident and those who come here seeking care. I call on my fellow mayors to do the same in their cities.
This election cycle couldn't be more important. If, like me, you support women's rights, make sure your voice is heard on the ballot."
BALTIMORE, MD. (Friday, June 24, 2022) - Today, Mayor Brandon M. Scott announced that the City of Baltimore would provide $300,000 in grants to organizations that offer abortion and family planning services. This is a meaningful step toward maintaining Baltimore City's status as a place where residents and visitors can obtain safe, legal abortion services.
This announcement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade earlier today. Maryland's strong pro-choice legislation is not expected to change, so the city is preparing to expand service capacity to meet the needs of its residents and any care-seekers from states with anti-choice laws.
"A woman's decision about what to do with her own body is a fundamental human right," said Mayor Brandon M. Scott. "It is crucial that we invest in abortion and family planning so that we can welcome women seeking these services with open arms. We are morally obligated to make Baltimore a safe haven for care-seekers, and we are committed to doing just that."
Earlier in June, the City Council passed a resolution to designate Baltimore City as an Abortion Rights Protection Jurisdiction and improve abortion care capacity in preparation for an increase in the number of out-of-state patients seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
"As a Black woman and public health expert, I cannot stress enough how important it is to fund abortion services. Lack of access to safe abortions leads to significant increases in pregnancy related deaths," said Councilwoman Phylicia Porter, District 10. "It is our responsibility as elected leaders to protect the health of our residents and eliminate barriers to care."
"We are at a critical crossroads," said Council Vice-President Sharon Green Middleton, District 6."It is so important that we do the right thing and support local abortion service providers. Together, we are reaffirming a woman's right to choose and will make Baltimore a haven for individuals seeking care."
"I want to thank Mayor Scott for sharing our commitment to ensuring the reproductive health of both city residents and visiting care-seekers," said Councilman Zeke Cohen, District 1. "We will not allow the court to strip away autonomy and dignity from vulnerable people. Baltimore will be a sanctuary in the storm."
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is absolutely shameful and especially detrimental to Black women like me," said Councilwoman Danielle McCray, District 2, Chair of the Council's Health, Environment, and Technology Committee. " I applaud Mayor Scott for his swift and decisive action on behalf of women, not just those in Baltimore. In partnership with the Mayor, we are ensuring safe and reliable access for care-seekers."
"In 1992 Maryland ensured that a woman's right to choose in Maryland was never in doubt. We are a safe place because of the work of so many women coming together, of which I am honored to be one of many, said Councilwoman Odette Ramos, District 14. "This Supreme Court decision is nothing short of a disaster for women across the Country, and puts women's rights back decades. Shame on them. In Baltimore, we're taking action to ensure that women have the right to safe abortion care. I'm proud of our city and state, and will fight for the rights of our sisters across the country - again."
That is…in no way an accurate description of the President's job.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying one of three things:So what is your solution if you don't like the Democrat? Vote Republican?
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.
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 ?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.
Option 2 isn't a real option. Voting 3rd party is basically a vote for the Republicans.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.
Yep and Option 1 is only possible in primaries. Option 3 does nothing if republicans continue to win.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.
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.
It doesn't, actually.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.
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.These. Voting just isn't enough. If there aren't any progressives, what's the point?
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.Step One: "General Strike"
Step Two: ?????
Step Three: All of our goals are accomplished
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.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.
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.That's what you're saying but SpaceCrystal's first post was to stop voting. Then, later vote green
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?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."
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!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.
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.
I'm not referring to just this victory. But them "co-opting" institutions as you put it is also the shrinking of their tent? I'm not sure what you're getting at. They have been shrinking the Republican tent for years and it has absolutely bore fruit.
Y'all should be rioting but go make some quirky signs to try and go viral again I guessDo you people not do any sort of research before you post shit like this?
Explain how throwing your vote behind a candidate that can't win isn't helping the Republicans.
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 ?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Help try to do things? Sure, and Obama did that.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.
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.
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.
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.
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 causeWhy 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.
All of you are letting mainstream media brainwash you. Heck, I used to think that all Democrats cared about us, too. Heck, I've been voting for them the past 22 years. Then I woke up.
You dunno but you want it done!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.
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.
Virginia is under full Republican control right now because rich people spent a lot of time, energy, and money researching and deploying an effective propaganda campaign.
But force McConnell to call for a vote? That is explicitly a power the President purposefully does not have.
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.How big? You want us to start electing actual Nazis so long as they have a D next to their name?
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.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?
Right, and where is this happening? Specifically. Where at the Senate level?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!
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."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.
I really don't want you to keep responding to me.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.
Of the partisan races where there was only one candidate on the ballot in November, 12,199 (74%) were Republican Party, 3,561 (22%) were Democratic Party, 507 (3%) were Independent, and the remainder were minor party candidates.