Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I wish the Dem party compromised as much with Dem voters as they did with trump supporters.
That's the best way to get Biden the votes necessary to prevent Trump.
Not the current strategy of:
Fuck you, you'll vote for me or get the fascist again
Like, this should be an easy victory for any halfway decent candidate. Instead we get an 82 year old that won't stop shit talking his party's voter base for not wanting to fund a genocide rather than social services.
Ok I've had this conversation and realized that people can't do the math. So lets do it:
Let's evaluate the last say 24 years and when the Dems had all 3 of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency. Obama had it for 2 out of 8 years. Biden had it for 2 out of 4 years. Let's add it: That means Dems had control for 4 out of 24 years. Read that again, they had control for only 4 the last 24 years.
And that can still be filibustered. So if you want the filibuster proof majority, then Obama had it for 4 months. Not years, MONTHS. Biden never had it. Add it up: Dems had filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.
Look at those stats again: Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. For filibuster proof control, Dems had control for 4 MONTHS of the last 24 years.
This is why Dems compromise, because they basically never have control. To get literally anything done they need to compromise. Take your pick, either 4 years of the last 24 fucking years, or the 4 months or the last 24 years. And you wonder why they have to compromise? And why they go to the centre?
If you want progress you have to give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories.
[Want to add Bill Clinton? That goes to 6 years of the last 32 years, and still 4 months for filibuster proof for the last 32 fucking years. Want to add Bush senior? Then it's 6 years of the last 36 fucking years. Want to add Reagan? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. That's right, 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years that Dems had control. And for filibuster proof majority they had 4 months of the last 44 fucking years.]
This is good context. Do you have any idea how much time republicans controlled all 3 houses in the same time frame? (Not arguing with you, just wondering if anyone’s really had any control this century.)
The thing with stagnation (or regression) is that you don't need to actually do much of anything. So the GOP doesn't need all 3 in order to sit on their ass and block things. They can do that with 1.
Thanks to centrist Democrats like Manchin, they can do it with 0.
It's almost like the source of our nation's most pressing problems is conservatism itself.
A plague of conservatism has never been cured by pacifism. Conservatives are doing their absolute best to oppress or kill the normal people. This disease is long overdue for a cure.
I'd be curious to see similar math for republicans. It's probably a similar amount of time where they had full bully powers to do whatever they wanted, right? Maybe it's just me, but I'm fine if that kind of power from a single party is rare. If it happened more often we would get much more volatility as laws were changed back and forth. This way change happens more slowly, but it's generally objectively good change rather than reactionary or populist.
The difference is that the left needs legislation for progress to happen. The right is more or less happy if nothing changes. The right wants to stop things like universal healthcare, good public schools, new environmental policies, etc etc. That's their main objective, to keep things status quo. So the left needs all three to pass legislation. The right need any 1 of those 3 because all they want to do is block things from happening. Very different.
Yep, and so we get very gradual change. It's not like the political environment is actually broken into left or right anyway. If the Republican party disappeared overnight, conservative Democrats would immediately become the new hurdles to progress, albeit shifted a bit to the left. "Progressive" policies would be more left, and the new "conservative" policies would as well, but they would still be conservative relative to the others.
The Dems can get rid of the filibuster today.
Besides that they can't because Manchin says no, that would mean congratulations Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years (/s). Are we still wondering why they have to compromise?
Unfortunately, the conservative Dems have already said they will not allow the filibuster to be abolished. Maybe next term, though, as Sinema and Manchin won't be with us anymore.
This is nearly a complete non-sequitur to the comment you are responding to. If Biden laid it out like you have, said "look we're in a bad position here, we need to compromise with the fascists even though they are wrong", if he presented a strong platform with goals people could get excited about, and make it clear who and what are the obstacles voters have to overcome to get there, he could bring out the voters to get those overwhelming and consistent majorities. The same goes for every Democratic president you named. Instead, Biden is absolutely obstinate about it. He acts like the fascists are decent and reasonable people, like the only hope the left can have is to slow down the slide to the right, and like we're the problem - not the Republicans, not the right-wing Democrats, no, the only problem is that some of us would like less murder and more food, housing, healthcare and education. That's exactly why the Democrats have only had control for four of the last twenty-four years.
And the filibuster isn't real. It's literally just a made up rule they all agree to pretend matters. It can be ended at any time by a simple majority. Doing so at the beginning of a session would look more legitimate, but frankly, the so-called "nuclear option" is far more legitimate in itself than the routine abusive use of the filibuster. They choose to let it restrain them specifically so that they can blame inaction on it.
It's not a non-sequitur. It's exactly why they compromise in Congress. They never have control so to do basic things like pass a budget they need to compromise. It's literally why they compromise. And why they go to the centre to win elections.
What you're doing is closer a non-sequitur by ? demanding that Biden saying they have to compromise? And by saying ? he's not getting people excited? Like talk about a non-response just so you can say "bring out voters" (like Fox doesn't exist) and "obstinate" and a whole bunch of other insinuations. And so you can try to turn it around and blame Dems. It's so twisted around there's not much responding to it.
And wow you think the filibuster isn't real. Well I think that say it all.
Your comment was, as I stated, nearly non-sequitur because you only responded to one word of the first sentence of givesomefucks' comment:
I wish the Dem party compromised as much with Dem voters as they did with trump supporters.
You responded to the word "compromised". You responded as if you were responding to a general senseless rant against the very idea of compromise at all, a position which is not even present in that first sentence, and has nothing to do with the rest of their comment, or the overall point they were making about the belligerent and dismissive attitude Biden takes toward Democratic voters, and what different approach would actually win elections - I'll quote the rest so you don't have to scroll back:
That's the best way to get Biden the votes necessary to prevent Trump.
Not the current strategy of:
Fuck you, you'll vote for me or get the fascist again
Like, this should be an easy victory for any halfway decent candidate. Instead we get an 82 year old that won't stop shit talking his party's voter base for not wanting to fund a genocide rather than social services.
In my comment, I attempted to clarify and expound on what would work, what they are actually doing, and the great gulf between these, trying to bring it back to givesomefucks' actual comment, rather than what you imagined to respond to. Instead, you've responded, again, to a comment not actually made - accusing me of somehow "demanding" something. Where did I demand anything?
And yeah, the filibuster isn't real. A simple majority of the Senate can pass anything they want. They can drop the filibuster as a rule; they can carve out a general exception; they can even just choose to suspend it for that single piece of legislation. If a simple majority can pass any legislation they want, given that they actually choose to, then the filibuster is absolutely not real. It's smoke and mirrors so they can blame the other guys. In fact, it's probably not even constitutional - there's no constitutional support for it, and the founders were explicitly against including any kind of supermajority requirement.
They could have done away with the filibuster for good with a simple majority vote.
The filibuster is an excuse.
No because manchin and sinema said no. This was common news.
Yup. There's always someone to preserve the filibuster.
a lot of those on the right very much do, yes
Which is exactly why it's important that they not be allowed to hold any kind of power.
and, so, it is critical that we vote
Yeah but Biden and the Democrats haven't done enough. We should not vote so that all others suffer my spite. /s
As a wackadoo absolutist, I find Biden has not given us free energy and stopped all violence in the world. Therefore he obviously will not get my vote. The fact that trump will benefit from my ignorant obstinance is of no concern to me.
You beat the shit outta that strawman. good work.
Of course I agree with you, we can’t let trump win again by any means.
But that shouldn’t completely erase the problems or legitimate criticisms. Mainly, right now, the criticism against Biden isn’t that he hasn’t given us a Jetsons future. It’s…the genocide thing.
And yes, we all still understand that trump would not be any better. It’s just really hard to hold your nose and be, once again, forced to vote for someone doing something as objectively awful as full-throated support for a genocide. This is just another election in a long history of elections where we are forced to support something we can’t in good conscience support.
Again, we get it, trump can’t be allowed to win. But hand waving away the legitimate problems with what is happening is just disingenuous. Not to mention, as we keep having to be the ones to sacrifice our morals, things continually do get worse. As they have been for the last 40+ years. It’s just hard to square the “we need to vote for Biden” with the fact that he’s doing something objectively awful. We’re always the ones that need to be the bigger people and just give in. When our firmly held beliefs are screaming in our ears that this is a bunch of bridges too far.
It’s not a unique position. But it’s really fucking hard to live with yourself when you know what you’re voting for, just so you can vote against something worse. We all have to do it, it just feels terrible. And wrong. Because it is wrong. For all intents and purposes, a vote for Biden is a supportive vote for the genocide in Gaza. It’s…despicable. But we all have to do it. And that fuckin sucks.
Well put. I'm sorry for all the abuse you're gonna get from centrists for it.
No. I do not want one.
I do. Let them register in as a party so we have a list of names of people who we can publish and remove from jobs and shun for the rest of their lives. I think we can all agree that they should be unmasked.
To answer the question... No, I don't. But, as an LGBT+ solidly liberal voter they don't really care about my opinion. I'm not the intended audience.
no, but our corporate overlords do...
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Last July the Ron DeSantis campaign fired a speechwriter and former National Review contributor, Nate Hochman, for promoting a pro-DeSantis video featuring Nazi imagery; and scores of Republican aides on Capitol Hill have been outed by reporters as “groypers” — a term used to describe fans of Mr. Fuentes.
The presence of so many extremist elements in positions of power and influence is the price to be paid in the party’s bargain with MAGAism: Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar addressed a white nationalist conference in 2022, and an investigative report from 2020 found that at least 12 Trump administrative aides had ties to neo-Nazi and anti-immigrant hate groups.
The contemporary American right might not be a monolith, but it functions like a “popular front,” which traditionally refers to the broad coalition between leftists and liberals in the 1930s unifying against a common fascist enemy.
In fact, the right-wing popular front gave birth to modern conservatism, unifying a disparate group of right wingers, including luminaries like Senator Joseph McCarthy, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and William F. Buckley Jr. and more obscure — and more radical — figures like the magazine owner Russell Maguire, the classics professor Revilo Oliver and the American Nazi Party chief George Lincoln Rockwell.
Mr. Maguire, a Connecticut businessman and arms manufacturer, purchased The American Mercury magazine in 1952 and turned it into one of the most influential conservative journals of its day, inveighing against the threat of international communism, creeping liberalism and collectivism.
And unlike in decades past — where the far right was an important part of the right-wing popular front but did not exert hegemonic control — MAGAism is today the dominant strain in conservative politics.
The original article contains 1,333 words, the summary contains 282 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Only if he has the same fate.
Yeah, but that follows millions of deaths and an entire country destroyed.
I'd much rather he lose and spend the rest of his life in jail.
Leaving behind a destroyed country, half of which is a puppet of Russia?
Pretty damn accurate actually.
Yeah he's most of the way there.
That "mind-set" has been in the Waffle House since it's construction... and the only way that it can not be obvious to you is if you are delusional enough to believe that the US was really "defending" itself in all those third-world countries it has brought so much misery and suffering to.
You're getting downvoted, but this is true. 13 colonies were able to fight the British better than each one doing their own things. Reich means realm, or more specifically empire. Germany unified as a single country in the mid-late 1800s. Hitler then came along and decided Germany needed more space, lebensraum, and prestige to do all the things they wanted to do. They killed millions for it. Manifest Destiny, from sea to shining sea, all that is what this is. The US has done it too. We murdered and moved native Americans for decades for white immigrants to have "living space".
However, I don't think any of the dumbasses who made this stupid video know any of that. It was a joke to them. Right now, I'm not scared of Nazis in the White House. I am scared of people who think Nazis are a funny joke being in the White House, because that leads to Nazis in the White House.
I am scared of people who think Nazis are a funny joke being in the White House, because that leads to Nazis in the White House.
The thing about Nazis in the Waffle House is that US foreign policy would barely change - it would literally just look like foreign policy under Kissinger.
As for domestic policy... there are problems with this (perceived) "fascism" that everyone imagines Trump is going to bring to the Waffle House (ie, fascism that isn't already there). The "other" (ie, Jewish people) that Hitler used as traction to set Germany on it's genocidal colonialist path was a very small and very disempowered segment of Germany's society - this is not the case in the US. The US military (for instance) literally cannot function without the mass-participation of the very marginalized people the fascists are openly trying to repress. They are essentially clamoring for what will soon be a minority regime - like those of Apartheid-South Africa and Israel... except there won't be a fascist-loving US "big brother" to prop them up and stuff them full of handout money because it is the US itself we are talking about.
I'm aware that this won't stop them from trying - and the violence they will be using to do so is only going to escalate. Where this will end I have no idea - there is no historical precedent for it. The one thing I do know is that the Dems will not be stopping it.