#but it was still the right thing to do and democrats had to step in and do it

[qqueenofhades]

heyla! not trying to rant persay, but I've been really enjoying your take on political matters, they make a lot of sense to me (without putting you on a pedestal or anything like that) I got engaged politically in the 2016 election because of Sanders running, worked with my local Democratic Party structure for about three years and had a great time honestly. Have not-quite-but-almost soured on Sanders since then though, and your posts over the last couple of months since I started following have articulated some of that souring really well. I think I might be over him entirely though, got one of those mass emails from him this morning talking about why he didn't vote on the debt ceiling bill (which I wasn't aware he hadn't until then) but that email is just chock full of "I can't in good conscience" over and over again, and I just. I don't have the bandwidth to dig into the numbers, but the amount of pressure relieved from the system by simple virtue of having this problem kicked down the road PAST the next election ???? almost incalcuable not having the American economy lashed by the failure to pass it will probably do more good for those in the lowest sections of the economic ladder by virtue of... not having the American economy collapse, in comparison to the (relatively?) minor obstacles added in the form of higher age requirements for welfare-work programs and I wonder, as I type this out, how it would have gone if he'd somehow been required to be the tie-breaker vote for whether or not the deal would pass. if it isn't all bluster or if he'd really sink the ship over "in good conscience" ideological quibbles. allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good. beating dead choirs with horses and all that I'm sure but I guess the tl;dr is that I am appreciative of the time you take to expand on these issues despite the fact it draws creatures out of the woodworks.

Lmao. Oh Bernie. The most consistent and reliable disappointment when it comes to putting his money where his mouth is for what, three decades? Four?

[matan4il]

The discussion at the International Court of Justice has been pretty predictable so far. South Africa claimed that on Oct 7 "out of the blue" Israel invaded Gaza and started a genocidal campaign against the Palestinians.

Israel's defense team (pic above) did the obvious thing, and pointed out Hamas' massacre on that day, that it's a genocidal threat to the citizens of this country, and that everything happening in Gaza can ONLY be understood in the context of this massacre, and of the right to self defense which EVERY COUNTRY has (meaning that harming this right will also harm Israel's right to an equal treatment), that it's fighting Hamas, not the Palestinians, that every bit of suffering inflicted on both sides is due to Hamas' attacks on civilians in Israel, and the intentional way it uses Gazan civilians as a tool to paralyze the right of a democratic state to defend its people.

To prove a murder, a prosecution has to prove two things: action and intent. It has to prove that the action was committed (meaning, that person A killed person B), and that the action was intentional (that person A meant to kill person B). In the same way, a genocide has to be proven regarding both action and intent. In terms of actions, Israel's defense team showed that Israel has taken numerous steps to minimize the number of Gazan civilian casualties, while the actions of Hamas are aimed to maximize them, and of course that to begin with, the number of fatalities is based on Hamas' reports, which are NOT reliable, and which do not show how many of the killed were terrorists, meaning legitimate targets, nor how many were killed by Hamas itself.

For intent, SA took Israeli officials' quotes out of context in order to make it seem as if Israel's goal is to target all Palestinians. The Israel defense team showed the real context of many of these quotes, as well as presented OPERATIONAL quotes (during cabinet meetings, where policy is ACTUALLY determined, quotes that are much more crucial for what is ACTUALLY happening than media quotes) showing that Israel explicitly declared Hamas is its target, not all Palestinians, and that many of the operational quotes are about giving Gazans humanitarian aid, and minimizing the number of causalties.

Israel has also argued that a crucial condition for provisional measures (internediary junctions that SA is asking for) is not met, the condition that a population is at an extraordinary danger for genocidal acts. Israel's defense team showed that with Israel's efforts to minimize causalties, and with its stated intent of lowreing the intensity of fighting as soon as it is possible, there's no extraordinary danger to the Gazans that Israel will carry out genocidal acts if the fighting isn't stopped. The team argued that on the contrary, if a provisional measure forcing Israel to stop its war against Hamas is granted, it's the Israeli population that would be left in an extraordinary danger of future genocidal acts committed by Hamas. Israel's team also pointed out that NEVER has a provisional measure calling for the stop of an ENTIRE military operation been given, meaning SA is asking for a judicial precedent, something that requires extraordinary circumstances, which SA had failed to prove.

I personally want to address one of the quotes SA used, Bibi talking about Amalek. The exact quote is: "Remember that which Amalek has done to you, we will defeat the evil" (source in Hebrew). People claimed that Amalek is code for genocide, because the nation of Amalek in the Bible was wiped out. What they ignore is that Amalek in the Hebrew Bible is a symbol, Amalek is not about a specific nation, it's about the fact that some will hate the people of Israel no matter what. Jews can be the nicest, best, kindest, sweetest humans on earth to a degree that's not actually realistic, and Amalek would still hate them. Amalek is essentially the biblical term or antisemites. "Remember that which Amalek has done to you" (Deutoronomy 25:17) has therefore become a symbol as well. It's not about a specific action against Amalek, because the truth is, we can never fully get rid of them, there will always be antisemites around. But Jews can remember what antisemites had done to us, and try to learn from it. And isn't that what we ALL say, that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

I also wanna demonstrate that Jews DO NOT take Amalek to automatically mean genocide.

This is from Israel's national Holocaust museum. Gallery 9 covers the way Holocaust survivors return to life, and re-build it. One of the main, real banners that survivors put up in the Displaced Persons (DP) camp of Bergen Belsen is presented to visitors:

It's the top banner in the pic, and the words are the original Hebrew for "Remember that which Amalek has done to you" followed by 3 exclamation marks. On the wall to the right you can see posters from DP camps, the top left one (out of the 4 posters in the top row) is from Munich, in 1948, and it is also using this very same quote, as it asks survivors to record and collect their testimonies:

First, I believe it's clear this is a call to do something very innocent in nature, and not remotely close to genocidal.

Second, I hope it's also obvious that this call to remember what Amalek has done, in the context of the Holocaust, is not a call against all Germans. It's not even a call against all Nazis. Oskar Schindler, who saved roughly 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust, was a German Nazi. The first ones to make sure he is remembered and honored, were Jews. In Romania, a man called Traian Popovici saved roughly 20,000 Jews in the city of Cernauti, and again, the first place where he was honored as a hero was in Israel, the Jewish state, in 1965. But also in Romania, about half of the Jewish population was murdered in the Holocaust, most of them (including my family), by Romanians. Not Germans, not Nazis. In every single country, Germany included, we can find those who helped save Jews, and those who helped to kill them. So I hope it's evident that no one was calling to vilify all Germans, as one nation, nor ignore those who killed Jews in the Holocaust, who were not German.

The use of Amalek here is obviously NOT a call to genocide applied indiscriminately to an entire nation. Accordingly, human history does not include that time Jews carried out a counter-genocide against the Germans after WWII. Despite the repeated use of the term Amalek, which came from the people themselves. Anyone who claims Amalek is automatically a call to genocide does not know Jewish culture, but is still trying to weaponize it against Jews.

I also have to say that one of the more despicable libels stated as if it were fact in the ICJ yesterday by SA, was that Israel is trying to prevent babies in Gaza from being born. In Israel, about 2 million people are Arab. While only about 7% of them define themselves as Palestinian (according to a 2020 survey), many around the world (and especially the anti-Israel crowd) see them all as Palestinians. Israel financially supports families with kids, and it also pays for fertility treatmeans for the first two kids of (would be) Israeli parents. And there is NO difference between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel in this. Yes, Israel is financially supporting the birth of Arab babies, that's just fact.

In contrast, during the Holocaust, we know the Nazis, in addition to murdering Jewish babies in places like the extermination camp of Auschwitz, also tried to prevent them from being born. We have the protocols of a discussion between Jewish community leaders in a Lithuanian ghetto, where they're trying to decide what to do with the statement of the Nazis, that if they learn of even one Jewish baby born alive in the ghetto, they will come in and murder everyone in there. These Jewish leaders know that there are pregnant women in the ghetto. They know that some of these expectant mothers have already lost their husbands, and all they have left of the men they loved is the baby they're carrying. These women would not easily agree to have an abortion. But if they don't, everyone would be murdered. What's the right thing to do, and how to do it?

At the ICJ, SA did not present one single piece of evidence to support the claim that Israel is preventing Palestinian babies from being born. I think it's a whole new moral low, to take something that was actually historically done to Jews as a part of the genocide against us, and present it without any proof as if the Jewish state is doing that itself. This is how anti-Zionism gives birth to new antisemitic blood libels. This is a part of how anti-Zionism is antisemitic by its very nature.

Outside the court, Israeli journalists report that a campaign by the families of the hostages (some of which were present at the discussions), asking to remind everyone of their family members still held in captivity by Hamas, was not approved for publishing in the Netherlands. These are the posters they wanted to share:

While those kidnapped and their loved ones can't testify as to the absurdity of portraying Israel's self defense as genocide, the hostages were mentioned, and their faces were shown in the court, in one of the more moving moments IMO of today's proceedings.

There's also a pro-Israel demonstration outside. An Israeli journalist who interviewed two of the participants, started by admitting that this group was protesting so peacefully, he completely missed them at first. So don't be surprised if they're not mentioned or interviewed by most journalists. He also pointed out that repeatedly, anti-Israeli protesters would drive by this pro-Israel group, shout out anti-Israel slogans, often while waving a Palestinian flag, and film the reactions of the protesters. Just to be clear, that's harassment.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[decolonize-the-everything]

If only 1/3 of voters of vote and only half of those voters are democrats why do people care when democrats say "nobody else would vote a 3rd party"?

You mean Democrats wouldn't, right? They represent barely half of 1/3 of voters. They absolutely do Not speak for everyone. There is still 80% of the fucking country remaining.

I'm not talking to democrats about my candidate or asking for their opinion anymore than democrats ask for approval from Republicans. Why have the rest of us given them the power to speak over us?

So if you are a Democrat, this post is not for you

"It's splitting the vote" when I try appealing to the 80% of the country that doesn't vote? Then why don't dems yell at Trump about splitting the vote?

Cuz they know those are Republicans™ and have fundamentally different beliefs than them. It's useless. The people voting for Republicans would have no interest in Democrats, right? There's no point.

Interesting 2/3 of the country doesn't vote in that context.

It's interesting that 2/3 of voters said they would vote for a 3rd party in that context.

The country does not support democratic politics anymore. Accept it. Democrats are not entitled to anyone's vote and other candidates are not required to step down just to let them win.

You know what I mean?

3rd parties absolutely have a shot is what I'm saying.

Democrats don't listen to Republicans who tell them how Biden is a pedophile and shouldn't get elected do they? Why the fuck do people who support 3rd parties listen to what democrats think about them??

Reminder Trump won the electoral college vote in 2016 with 304 votes. Clinton had 227. 7 people voted for someone else. 227+7=234. Less than 304 still. And Clinton won the popular vote by millions.

Clinton didn't lose because of 3rd party voters or non-voters. The election was not that close. She lost because Trump was more appealing than she was to voters.

So again, why are we letting the 16.5% of America that doesn't even like their own candidate tell 3rd parties that giving Americans another option is useless and "swaying the vote?"

Non-voters need to be motivated to the ballot box or they simply won't show up like they've been doing. And Clinton wasn't as motivating to voters as Trump was.

She lost because she did Not have any 3rd party/non-voter appeal and could not sway people from Trump's camp. She needed to do one or the other to win the election and she did neither.

Just like Kamala is doing because she also is a centrist democrat. And she too statistically appeals to way less people than Trump does.

You know what I think? It's time to tell democrats to get fucking stuffed.

Sorry but if Dem candidates can't get the support of the half the country and even their own party hates their candidates, why the fuck should anyone let democrats tell them how elections work?

"it's not realistic" oh but it's realistic for 16% of the country to hold the rest of us all hostage to stop Trump instead? Gtfoh.

Anyway

This is who I plan to vote for because fuck Biden and Trump. The remaining 2/3 of us need someone who's up to our standards and stands to actually motivate people to the ballot box.

This person motivates me.

Jasmine Sherman is doing a 24 hr live on tik tok right now (July 27, 2024) if you have any questions about their policy. They're also streaming it on twitch too if you'd like to tune in without using tiktok (links at the bottom). They'll be there until 10pm EST.

Some things they support:

Abolish police

Free Palestine, Free Sudan, Free DRC

Landback

Guaranteed housing

Reparations

Trans rights

Universal healthcare & healthcare reform

Universal basic income

Disability Rights

COVID regulations

Decriminalizing drugs & sw

And way way more!!

Tik tok live link: fatblacksocialist

If you are someone who usually doesn't vote and/or refuses to vote for genocide, please reblog this

[milf--adjacent]

serious voting question: I'm an ml and generally I don't vote. can I ask what your reasoning is for voting third party? I'm curious to round out my opinion a little better

Seeing just how many people voted socialist back in the 19-teens was an inspiration to me as a baby leftist growing up in a deep red state. Even if they didn't win, I saw that I wasn't alone like I felt I was, that even the 'stupid' people of the past had some sense in their heads and supported policy and politics we still need even today. So no. 1 it's for the baby leftists to come who will feel trapped and alone and need a tangible connection to their beliefs: The number of people who simply didn't vote doesn't show up in textbooks, but minor party votes do.

Second: the democratic campaigning apparatus only serves to seperate those willing to organize from meaningful organization. By convincing people to put that same energy into the third party of their choice, we have countered at least a little of the Democrat's anti-revolutionary strategy. If you can convince a progressive to actually act and vote like a progressive, that's someone who might actually help when you need to set up a soup kitchen or protest in the future.

Thirdly: Many of these "I'm gonna vote anyway so I might as well vote blue" folks have never engaged in organizing. Getting involved with 3rd parties puts them in touch with others who are of a similar political slant, the first (and often most difficult) step in organizing. At least with the Greens in most places, they actively ask for help of all sorts, giving people experience in organizing they can build on as they become more politically involved. More people who know how to organize is never a bad thing.

Fourthly: If a third party can get just 5% of the national vote in an election, they are entitled to national campaign funding and a space in the official debates in the coming election. This would be a much needed shift in American politics. Democrats sound much more like republicans than leftists, and that's part of why they never get involved in the free and equal debates: the democrats are to the right of the fucking libertarians on a number of policies.

Finally: if a 3rd party candidate did win the presidency, a lot of the good things the democrats have held over our heads like bait for decades would get done, and people would have more time and energy to commit to political actions. I support 3rd party politics because at the very least it shakes things up a little. The status quo is what's killing us and any effort to change that disorganizes and spreads our true enemies thinner. Center-left socialism will not save us, but it will at least address the social ills of our society in a helpful way and attempt to tackle crisies like climate change, policing, and ending foreign policy fiascos via slashing the bloated military budget (even the fucking libertarians are running on that).

The general population of the US will refuse to even consider actual leftist politics without some sort of shift in our electoral politics. Instead of apathy and middle-finger-hoisting inaction, I chose an action with lasting strategic value. If we want a real "the revolution will not be televised" moment, we have to slap the soma of blue-tie lies out of enough hands to get people to pay attention. 3rd party electoralism is a step in the correct direction for them and a path I have started many people down already. I plan to continue until there is no need for it.

[nothorses]

May I ask why you think Biden stepping down and Kamala being the candidate to be 'good news'? I'm still voting for whoever the Democratic candidate is ofc, but I worry this move threw away the average swingvoter who may have been swayed towards voting blue. I don't see how anyone who may have been okay voting for Biden by virtue of him being an old white dude is gonna be as nice towards a brown woman. I mean, people were too sexist for Hillary, the most milquetoast white woman imaginable. I'd really like to hear your perspective.

Biden has been polling like shit for months, and basically fucking everyone has been calling for him to step out of the race for a while now. It's been the opinion of political experts that he doesn't have much of a shot in this election for a variety of reasons. The vast majority of his own base is incredibly dissatisfied with his stance on Palestine (an understatement), and numbers have been reflecting that he was going to be running against some truly miserable odds because of that.

It is genuinely the best option for him to step out of the race. Literally just about anyone else has a much better shot at winning than Biden did. Kamala included! There was a press conference a while back where someone actually asked him if he'd step down if Kamala polled better, and he said he wouldn't. Which is extremely worrying, because it demonstrates that he may have been prioritizing his own personal ego over the importance of keeping Republicans out of office this election.

I don't like Biden, and I really didn't like his odds in this race. Nobody else did, either. The fact that Obama came out and said Biden needs to step down is indication enough that this happened because the situation is really that dire; you have to remember that Democrats are all about Doing Things By The Book, especially in the last 8-ish years when it's been useful for them to be Rule Followers in contrast to the tantrum-throwing chaos machines that Republicans have been. If there was even a sliver of hope for Biden to stay in the race after being chosen in the sad sham that the primaries were this election cycle, they would have kept pushing just to stay within the bounds of convention.

I was ready to push for Biden regardless, because keeping Republicans out of office is priority #1. But I've been saying for a while now that he needs to drop out (just... not on Tumblr, where the dominant conversation is "does voting for a flawed political pawn make you personally responsible for everything they ever do, or should we abstain and let the fascists hijack our government and kickstart several new genocides for the sake of personal moral purity" and I don't think that kind of nuance would be well-received).

I use my grandparents as a litmus test in a lot of this stuff, because they are very much the Typical Liberal Democrats, and their opinions on these things tend to fall in line with the majority of voting Democrats. They absolutely loved Biden in 2020, long before he was chosen as the candidate. They don't anymore. Seeing them lose any and all enthusiasm for voting for this corpse of a man was evidence enough to me that we needed someone else. Ideally someone people can get excited about, because I think folks have mostly lost the perspective we had in 2020 when Trump's nightmarish presidency was fresh in everyone's minds, and served as motivation enough to get to the fucking polls- regardless of who the Dem pick actually was.

From what I understand, Kamala is actually polling better than anyone else right now. I have my fears about voters' racism and misogyny too, but if she's doing well in the polls, I wonder if maybe there's some other factors counteracting that. She's also got name recognition, and the general impression of Being Qualified (because she's been VP already, like Biden was), and Being Likeable (because she comes with the general positive associations of the largely successful Biden presidency, without any baggage of perceived responsibility that Biden himself carries- like Biden did with Obama). She's been flying under the radar while still reaping the benefits of positive associations, and people know who she is. That feels like a good combination, but I don't know enough, and I haven't read enough into it to make any decently educated guesses.

That said, I don't really know as much about who the other potential candidates might be, either. I've heard Pete Buttigieg's name tossed around, but nobody liked his ass back in 2020 and idk if that's actually changed at all. I just know that every politically-knowledgeable/politically-active leftist whose opinion I've heard on the topic has been citing Biden dropping out as the literal only hope for a non-Republican to win this election, and I'm really fucking excited to see that come to fruition. I just hope the Dems pick someone who really does have a good shot.

As a sidenote, I also really hope this marks a shift in how they make decisions, too. It's become increasingly obvious how out-of-touch Democrats are with their voters, and Biden 2024 was just the latest and greatest indicator of exactly how bad that's gotten. The fact that the party has been able to make such an unconventional decision in response to what their voters actually want gives me a little bit of hope that we might be able to influence more change with them going forward than we have been.

[ariaste]

Ok I haven't seen anyone else talking about this yet, but I'm going insane about it so now it's going to be your problem. The question on everyone's mind during IWTV s1 is, "Ok but did you eat the baby, Louis?" and I'm here to tell you that I had an epiphany and I have concluded....

Yes, Louis did eat that baby. Because of Mardi Gras.

I know that sounds crazy, hear me out.

(Contains spoilers for the end of the book series)

First, for those of you who are unfamiliar, one of the most delicious traditions of New Orleans Mardi Gras is the king cake, which is a ring-shaped pastry of sugary, buttery death covered in purple, green, and gold sprinkles. (If you can get your mouth on a good one, it's divine. Mediocre ones are deeply disappointing. This is a case where quality matters. ...I am getting off topic.) Inside the king cake, according to tradition, is hidden a little plastic baby. Whoever gets the slice that has the baby in it is proclaimed the king of that particular Mardi Gras party and is granted certain solemn responsibilities, such as buying the king cake next year. It's not a very large plastic baby (about the size of maybe two jellybeans), so sometimes you find it in your mouth rather than on your plate. So: You eat the baby, you're the king.

Got it? Great.

Episode 1x07 shows us Lestat Very Definitely Eating That (Fake (Plastic??)) Baby, while being King of Mardi Gras, on the Krewe of Raj (which is probably meant to refer to the real-life Krewe of Rex. Rex and Raj both mean king). This is a wild sort of thing to do for no reason (whether Doylist or Watsonian), but New Orleans residents would probably parse this as a gruesome and tasteless perversion of the concept around the king cake tradition. Gruesome and tasteless perversions of ideas are exactly Lestat's type of humor. He knows what he's doing: He's making a Weird Statement about the legitimacy of his "reign".

Still with me? Ok. Here we go, last step.

The penultimate and antepenultimate books of the series are Prince Lestat and Prince Lestat and the Realms of Atlantis, in which Lestat is Democratically Elected (read: strongarmed/browbeaten/guilt-tripped by a jury of his peers) prince of the vampires. He mopes around about this because he doesn't want the job, but ultimately pulls himself together and makes big wet puppy eyes at Louis like, "plz plz plz mon cher plz come be royal consort, i literally cannot cope with this situation unless I have you with me" until Louis agrees to come be royal consort.

Now, the strangely intense and INTENTIONAL ambiguity of "did Louis eat the baby?" in 1x02 -- that is, the way that there is conspicuously no answer as to whether he did or not -- could just be a cool opportunity to make us think about vampires doing shocking, irredeemable things, such as the consumption of infants. But in parallel with 1x07 and the fact that this is New Orleans and Lestat's baby-eating incident was explicitly rooted in Mardi Gras traditions... it strikes me as foreshadowing. It strikes me as a clever little wink of secret jokes by the Unreliable Narration Show which has already established that it loves playing games with the audience and intentionally leaving little hints that pay off later in a BIG way.

It's New Orleans. It's Mardi Gras. The king eats the baby, and Loustat's destined endgame is Royal Power Couple.

Louis ate the baby. One hundo percent, he ate that baby. Five bucks says we find out the truth right around the time Lestat is crying and wailing and begging Louis to run the vampire government with him.

Season 7 when????

[detectivehole]

if youre american; you gotta go vote and you have to vote for whoever the democratic party ends up tossing your way, this time. it takes only moments of your day and slivers of your effort, it does not impede your ability to preform additional political actions, neither does it somehow lessen the impact of those actions

it is a necessary step this election to try and reduce harm- the election will proceed with or without you, and you will live with the consequences of it regardless of your participation; are you going to lie down and take it, or exercise all avenues available to you? i will not pretend your vote is anything but a drop in leaky bucket but its something, and its free and its easy. "i could never bring myself to vote for such a monster!" you are right, hes a monster, and an idiot, and ill feel miserable checking the box, but if the only legitimate reason not to vote that you can provide for me is your own moral repulsion im afraid thats just not good enough

compromising your sense of right and wrong to a limited capacity is necessary to be both politically active and impactful, as well as to just be a functional human being, because how you feel in the face of greater issues like this is, frankly, immaterial. action is the only language that matters at this moment. moral purity is a myth and your ability to maintain any semblance of it is a privilege

the only two choices here are voting or not voting; not voting, when you know conservatives will be lining the fuck up this election is, genuinely, rolling over and conceding their victory. if you find yourself asking, "how could things get any worse!?" i very earnestly urge you think about Trump; what hes said, what hes been saying recently, how his congregation feels about him, and how he and the republicans stacked and manipulated the other branches of the government during his presidency- and research how exactly it still effects us today

things could get worse. ill admit were in for a "worse" next four years regardless, honestly, but theres no biting the bullet of crappy futures. theres no "getting it over with" here. 330 million+ people domestically (not even considering the global implications) are counting on each other. you have to choose the Better Shitty Future

you gotta do it. you dont have to like it, you dont have to be happy, you dont have to tell anyone who you voted for or even that you did it at all. but you have to go vote, and you should encourage others to do the same

i definitely understand why you feel like you just can't. that you could never do anything that might be taken as actual support for such a spineless, shitty party and genocide-mongering, incompetent man. i had come to the exact same conclusion myself, initially. honestly i'm not sure anyone with a brain could think less of you for it. but i've Thought about it, like i'm encouraging you to Think about it, and it's just not a game of support, it's about making sure one of them loses. the system is broken, but you're still inside- you can't leave, and no one's coming to save you, so you have to play. make peace with it

[forsetti]

On Calls For Pres. Biden To Step Aside: Know The Players And Motives Tossing aside one of the most progressive presidents in fifty years because you are afraid they might not win an election is just plain stupid without a really, really, really solid backup plan. It is even stupider if you look at who is pushing for him to step aside and their motives. Here are the main groups calling for Pres. Biden to step away from running against Trump in November and why:

1-Republicans. Republicans know Biden is the biggest threat to them getting back the White House and enacting their batshit crazy policy agenda. They want nothing more than to not run against Pres. Biden because not only does he have the track record of beating Trump before but has an amazing economic record to run on. If you ever want to understand who Republicans view as their political threat, all you have to do is look at who they are attacking. They were going after Hillary for three years prior to 2016. The entire Benghazi witch hunt had no other purpose than to damage her electorally. Every single hearing about Hunter Biden, the border, the Biden Crime Family,… is nothing more than dog and pony hearings to dampen Democratic and Independent voter enthusiasm.

2-The Media. Trump’s non-stop crazy train administration was a goldmine for media outlets. Every day there was a new outrage, wild-ass rant, something that brought eyes to screens which translates to selling ad time/space. The Biden administration is efficient and boring. No scandals, except the ones Republicans gin up that turn up nothing. No rants. No chaos. No real controversy. Just plain old boring governance which is great for the country but bad for a business model that relies on shock, drama, and negativity. “Dems in disarray,” has been a media cottage industry since Bill Clinton was in office. If you don’t understand the financial motivation for why the media constantly derides Democrats for the slightest misstep while ignoring Republican malfeasance, you are probably likely to fall for their own brand of political propaganda.

It should tell you something that major news outlets have come out demanding Pres. Biden step aside for not looking good on camera during one ninety-minute debate but not a single one has asked the same of the candidate who was found guilty of sexual assault, found guilty of thirty-four felony charges, misspeaks dozens of times at every rally, and goes off on wild, illogical, batshit crazy tangents, and is tied to child sexual abuse via Jeffery Epstein. That they are not treating Trump with the same non-stop demands to step aside as they are Pres. Biden should tell you something about their motives.

3-Bad Foreign Actors. Russia wants nothing more than for Biden to lose the election. He is their biggest threat to taking over Ukraine and pushing their influence farther into Western Europe. NATO is stronger now and has more members than at any time in its history. This is the last thing Putin wants. Russia has been actively pushing propaganda online to influence U.S. elections for some time but really have ramped it up the past few election cycles.

Russia targets Republicans by fueling rage over culture war topics like abortion, immigration, racial violence, and the decline of Western, Christian norms. They also target liberals by trying to divide them over issues they care about Israel/Palestine, LGBTQI rights, Bernie vs Clinton, Bernie v Biden, DNC v “real progressives,”… They want liberals at each other’s throats because, if unified, the left is the largest voting bloc in America. Conservatives are electoral dinosaurs but they maintain power through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and liberals being more invested in their petty arguments than voting Republicans out of office.

4-Sandernistas. There is still a good-sized faction of people on the left who are still upset about Bernie Sanders not being the nominee in 2016 or in 2020. They are especially mad at what they deem as “establishment Dems,” screwing over Sanders in 2020 starting with the South Carolina primary. What they really are upset about is black voters, predominately female black voters, denying their White Progressive Savior his rightful spot at the head of the ticket. Because Pres. Biden was the one who benefited from this minority voting bloc in 2020, tearing him down and taking him out is a passion project for a lot of so-called “progressives.”

These “progressives,” are under the disillusion that if the Democratic Party fails far enough, hard enough, they will be able rebuild it in their own, perfectly progressive image. They never explain how this magical transformation will happen, they just take it as a matter of faith. Of course, anyone who understands American history and basic civics knows if/when conservatives have ultimate power, they will make sure they never lose another election.

These “progressives,” are the worst kind of progressive. They are often white, middle to upper-class liberals who view politics as a game because they are usually shielded from the consequences of the electoral decisions. If you are a middle/upper-class white, male progressive, very few, if any of Trump’s actions when he was in office affected you directly. The same cannot be said about the progressive voters who overwhelmingly supported Hillary in 2016 and Joe in 2020. They have the most skin in the game, have the most to lose and they vote accordingly. For white dudebros to step in and demand Pres. Biden step aside is a direct “fuck you” to the most loyal part of the base which has the most to lose if Trump is reelected.

Never mind this group has NEVER accomplished a damn thing politically other than cost many good Democrats to lose and decades and decades of progressive policy and law wiped out. They are as adamant about their political skills as they are it is always someone else’s fault when the find-out portion of their fuck around actions comes to fruition.

5-Progressives suffering from 2016 PTSD. This is the one group I can actually relate to and sympathize with. Hillary's loss in 2016 was a major shock to a lot of people. This shock was compounded because not only were we denied the first female president, but we got a lying, narcissistic, misogynist man-child in her place who went about rolling back decades of hard-earned progressive policies and turning the Supreme Court into a right-wing arm of the Federalist Society.

For those of us who lived through 2016, there is no election data that will make us feel good or at ease. It also makes us hyper-vigilant about anything and everything that can be seen as a negative towards the nominee. The second anything bad happens, whether factual or not, a lot of people in this group take the flight instead of the fight option which is associated with PTSD.

Being overly anxious and hyper-vigilant are not necessarily bad unless they lead to bad decisions.

There is only one sure way to make sure Trump is not reelected. Vote for the candidate running against him. Period. Full fucking stop.

If you aren’t willing to do this, for whatever reason you tell yourself, then you will be directly responsible for the very thing you claim is a politically existential moment. Stop listening and parroting Republican talking points. Stop allowing the media to determine who you should vote for. Stop listening to butt-hurt progressives who have no record of political success about what those who do should/shouldn’t do. Stop acting like frightened little bunnies whenever someone says something negative about successful Democratic leaders. Stop automatically going into flight mode when something goes wrong or something negative is said. Fight.

If you aren’t willing to fight, and I’m not talking about inter-party fighting (that time came and went,) for women’s rights, minority rights, safe air/water/food, climate policies, democracy… then you really aren’t as progressive as you tell yourself and others. You are a big reason why we are even in this situation. Whether you like Pres. Biden or think he is too old really isn’t the pertinent issue if you really care about the things you say you do. As long as Pres. Biden is willing to fight like hell for progressive policies and prevent Republicans from turning the country into a white supremacist, misogynist, oligarchy, you should be doing the same.

I don’t know what is going to happen between now and election day. Neither does anyone else. The one thing I am 100% positive about is if Trump does win, the people on the left who have spent the majority of their time and energy railing against the Democratic Party and Pres. Biden will blame anyone and everyone other than themselves. If Pres. Biden wins reelection, these same people will claim their childish hissy fits are what led him to “change course,” enabling him to win. Their view of personal responsibility for election outcomes is some fucked up “No True Scotsman,” bullshit. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING ever counts against their political beliefs and views.

I know some people reading this will wonder why I spend so much time and energy railing against the left. The answer is really simple-I fully expect the people on the right to be bad-faith actors who are hell-bent on destroying any and all progressive policies and candidates. I don’t, and shouldn’t expect the same from people who claim to be political allies. You can't claim to be a member of Team Good™ if your behaviors and actions help Team Bad™.

[batboyblog]

Seeing the post about Jasmine, I can literally feel an ulcer grow within me. Are people actually this fucking stupid? Spreading VERY blatant and easily debunakable misinformation? Are they MALICIOUSLY trying to sabotage shit? Also the antisemitism only grows stronger. You literally have spoken in support of Palestine multiple times and yet these people start to froth at the mouth when they find out you're Jewish, these people have the reading comprehension of a fucking brick!!! And seeing the quote by Malcom X... Literally that's the most disgusting shit to act like you're a white liberal when Jews are not seen as white, are seen as lesser than white, the lack of self-awareness this person has is stunning. Sorry to make such a long post but what the fuck, seriously what the fuck is people's problem.

what the fuck is people's problem is a great question that I really wish I had an answer for.

I mean on the antisemitism front I suspect that the thrill of bullying transcends ideological views, just because you say you're a socialist doesn't mean you're also a good person. Just means you have justify your behavior through a new lens, so its fine to accuse Pete Buttigieg of being a sexual pervert like some conservative Catholic, if you're doing it as a "joke" because he's "Neo-liberal" or whatever, or post snakes at Elizabeth Warren, or or etc etc as long as you come up with an excuse its fine to be horrible as long as you do in the name of leftism! or whatever.

as to the wider question? why blow up chances to make progressive change by supporting nonsense candidates who are just unfunny versions of Vermin Supreme? hm I don't know, but I suspect that for a lot of them, politics aren't really real to them. It's like ideological football for them, the most important thing is to "be right" and "win the argument" over in reality, we have to sometimes work with people we loath, sometimes we have to put up with shitty things to get what we really want, and always always always its slow work. Listen, in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt put forward the idea of a national health service, over 100 years later we're still fighting for universal health care. Now we've made important steps, everyone over 65 those who need it most, have health coverage through Medicare, others have been added to Medicare, we have Obamacare which regulates the health markets and helps people get affordable coverage and more people are covered now than every before. But people like we're talking about would rather than was Nothing for anyone, that everyone was not covered at all, than take an answer that helps people but isn't perfect.

Just isn't my style really, idk I just can't help but think about all the people whose lives got saved by Obamacare and just, what we should have let them die? progress builds it doesn't just appear nothing just happens, so each term you move closer, but each time a Republican gets it, they undermine, undo, go backward. I mean for example, Trump literally wants to get rid of the job in government that advices all the many federal departs on how to be greener and replace it with a guy who's job it'll be to push departments to use more oil and gas.... literally thats a thing, what a perfect example of what a Republican Presidency is about, going backward. Then when we have a Democrat rather than making progress they have to undo all the damage to get to baseline and then start improving.

I also think there's a small group of cynical grifters, when Democrats/liberals/people on the left whatever we want to call them, are scared and frustrated and upset, ie when a Republican is in power and elections are years away, they invest, money, time, energy into things to try to feel like they're making a difference or that they're heard, or validated. Left wing podcasts boom, left wing groups that are good at social media boom, people can become kinda stars and make money. Now many of those people drift off to normal life when there's a safe Democrat not doing horrifying shit every day, the money dries up. So the cynical crowd 1. tries to undermine Democrats to keep that feeling of frustrated hopelessness alive in listeners so they keep toning in and 2. they want Republicans to win! of course! its good for them!

[simply-ivanka]

Joe Biden and America’s Out-of-Control Spooks

The president should step aside rather than find out how the deep state would save his candidacy.

Wall Street Journal

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Thursday’s catastrophic debate can be a lifesaver for America. A different kind of 2024 election is still possible, starting with a rollicking contest of impressive Democratic governors for their party’s nomination. The outcome wouldn’t merely result in replacing an invalided Mr. Biden. It would allow Democrats to hire a new standard-bearer who doesn’t need to dig America ever deeper into the pit of lawfare, media lying and intelligence meddling to get himself re-elected.

This is the real issue now.

Not exactly the bipartisan wise person I’ve been hoping for, Bob Bauer will have to do. A former White House counsel under Presidents Obama and Biden, he has a timely new book, “The Unraveling.” Our democracy, he writes, endangers itself with its free fall toward win-at-all-costs cynicism, and the trouble doesn’t begin and end with Donald Trump.

He’s right, and only missing is 75% of his case since he doesn’t mention the collusion hoax or intelligence officials lying about the Hunter Biden laptop to help Mr. Biden get elected, episodes in which his own hands may not be entirely clean.

Now he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is. I see the same descent into reckless, zero-sum politics that he does. So does fund manager Ray Dalio, who told clients this week that the behavior of our parties is “threatening the rule of law as we know it and is bringing us closer to some form of civil war.”

What I don’t see is an underlying cause or dispute, such as slavery in the Civil War, of transcendent magnitude to explain it.

The tainting of our elections itself is what’s driving Americans apart.

This is where Mr. Bauer’s moment has arrived. He played Mr. Trump in Mr. Biden’s debate prep. He’s obviously trusted by the candidate. He could point out a few things about how we got into today’s mess, starting with former FBI Director James Comey’s ill-advised meddling in the Hillary Clinton email case to help another Democratic candidate. Play history backward without Mr. Comey and everything is different now. Mr. Trump likely loses in 2016. The collusion follies never happen, profoundly damaging half of America’s faith in Washington.

Mr. Biden is playing with the same fire all over again. He had every moral and political reason not to seek a second term—his age, Hunter Biden, the intelligence community’s unseemly lying to the American public to secure his first victory over Mr. Trump.

Almost anybody in the Democratic Party was a better bet to beat Donald Trump a second time, and Mr. Biden wasn’t a good bet to beat almost any Republican who might earn the GOP nomination instead of Mr. Trump.

But Mr. Biden insisted on being the candidate anyway, and we got the bubbling up of Trump prosecutions from dutiful Democratic prosecutors around the country. Whatever their merits, the charges had an overridingly political purpose: Return Mr. Trump to center stage and give Mr. Biden the one opponent he might reasonably hope to beat.

The miscalculation is now apparent. Mr. Biden’s own deterioration makes him the opponent even a scandalized and distrusted Mr. Trump could likely beat, possibly in a landslide.

What now? Ours was already in danger of becoming a government of siloviki, to borrow Russia’s word for intelligence operatives actively manipulating domestic politics. This subject our media continues to shy away from though academics are taking it up: the revolutionary and unprecedented activities of Mr. Comey and Obama intelligence veterans James Clapper and John Brennan starting in 2016 and again in 2020 with the laptop lie.

In my view, Mr. Biden is more blundering than calculating in this mess. He foolishly indulged his son over the years, getting himself in a situation in 2020 where his campaign had to be rescued from his family-created scandal by the shockingly disingenuous intervention of intelligence officials falsely fingering Russia for the laptop.

But ask yourself: Having stumbled into a dynamic where they might need a failing Mr. Biden to hold off a Trump restoration, how will our Clapperized elite prevent the outcome they have been telling themselves and us for eight years would be the end of America? Do you want to find out?

The 2024 election is already shaping up to be a deeply souring democratic experience for millions of Americans, the third such presidential election in a row. It can get a lot better or a lot worse depending on what Democrats decide to do, with Mr. Bauer hopefully whispering wisdom in Mr. Biden’s ear.

The next few days will be telling. If Mr. Biden remains in the seat, Mr. Trump may romp to a broad, unambiguous victory and mandate. Then you’ll want to hold your breath on the morning of Nov. 6.

[qqueenofhades]

I think the Aaron Sorkin fic people are writing about the convention to be extremely silly. It's going to be Biden. And if Biden's health takes a downturn and he feels the need to step down its going tk be Harris. This fantasy where we skip over her to whip up two random white guys(or like maaaybe Witmer) and somehow cruise to victory instead of fragmenting the party months before the election is simply not going to happen.

Look, I'm just saying, I got an email from the Biden campaign this morning where they seemed pretty darn happy with the actual (i.e. not-bloviating media) results of the debate: $38 million raised in 4 days ($30 million from individual small-dollar donors), 10K new volunteers in a week, 3x surge in campaign volunteers for battleground states, essentially no change or even a modest boost in the polls. So I think at this point, we can cautiously conclude the following things:

The debate looked bad for Biden, perhaps, but doesn't seem to have hurt him nearly as much the incredibly bad-faith BIDEN NEEDS TO STEP DOWN NOW takes being pumped out by the NYT and its other compatriots would suggest. Especially when these same media outlets have been gleefully sabotaging Biden at every turn for years already and whose fake-sanctimonious hand-wringing "for the good of the nation" pieces honestly should get them dropped into Superhell for Bad Journalists;

Biden went to Raleigh NC right after the debate and gave a fiery rally speech that was very well received. Now, I don't know why we didn't have that Biden at the debate, but it was the same night and there clearly was not any "cOgnItiVe dEcLinE" happening there (also Biden has a stutter and has for literally his entire life, and had a cold on debate night, so it was just an unfortunate confluence of factors)

There are very few actually undecided voters in this election (once again: HOW???) and those who tuned into the debate were largely already convinced of which candidate they were voting for and this didn't do much to change their minds. Just like, you know, pretty much every other debate in the history of presidential elections.

Ordinary voters, and not mainstream media outlets with BIDEN IZ BAD goggles clamped over their eyes, were able to see Trump's insane Gish gallops, lies, and full-blown dementia; this isn't going to get any better for him when he's already lost 20%-25% of GOP voters in every state primary and still is going to be sentenced in his criminal trial;

The D.C. political elite screaming about how Biden should step down (FOUR MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION) and leave the Democrats to start from scratch with some Star Chamber-selected candidate with no money and no incumbency record and no organization apparatus and a divided party are either fucking weapons grade morons or working secretly for Trump, because that IS in fact the best way to lose the election;

Such speculation seems to fall chiefly on Gavin Newsom, who (to his credit) has shut down any and all suggestion that he should try to step in and take the place of an incumbent who has won every state primary with 90% or more, because he's remotely sane and understands that this year is too important to fuck around with;

I've somehow never seen any suggestion that Biden should step aside for the duly elected (brown, female) Vice President, because everyone seems to think some Young Miraculous White Guy is coming and/or should step in;

All this while SCOTUS is clearly so confident of Trump getting back in that it's willing to grant him Absolute God King status pre- and post-emptively;

Yes, Biden needs to up his game before the next debate (though that's on Fox News iirc, blargh), but I think it's far enough post-debate that we can say it was bad but did not sink him, and if anything, reinforced the fact to many ordinary, non-brainwormed voters that Biden is old (which has been the number one chief theme of news coverage for four years and is no surprise to anyone) but is a decent and principled man doing a good job, while Trump is an absolute gibbering insane orange shitmonger fascist. I don't think he did himself any favors in that regard.

....anyway. The point is, do not be fucking insane people, Biden is not going to step down and frankly shouldn't, don't read the NYT (as noted, they've openly admitted to sabotaging him for personal ego reasons so I don't know why the hell anyone would listen to what they have to say about him), this is still an eminently winnable election, and let's go get those motherfucking fascists. I want Trump in jail and all of SCOTUS and the MAGAGOP fucking crying over it because they fucking suck. Let's go.

[odinsblog]

And right on schedule, Mitch McConnell has returned to block the now-deadlocked Judicial committee from selecting a replacement for the ailing Feinstein. So Democrats are now successfully blocked from appointing any of Biden’s judicial nominees to the bench. Feinstein stepping down and allowing California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, to name her replacement is one easy way to end this Republican farce, but she won’t do what’s best for her constituents. (source)

Feinstein has been missing in action for months now. Her absence is materially harming the nomination and appointment of judges—judges who could counter the radical zealots that Trump seated. If she cannot do the job any longer (and there is a lot more to be said on that front), then she needs to make room for someone else who can.

I understand that a lot of Blue MAGA sycophants do not like to read, see or hear anything even slightly negative about RBG, but the truth is that she had cancer and knew that her health was failing.

Despite two previous bouts with metastatic pancreatic cancer and public pleas from Democratic law scholars, she decided not to retire in 2013 or 2014 when Obama and a Democratic-controlled Senate could have appointed and confirmed her successor. Waiting until Hillary could replace her was a selfish and incredibly risky gambit, and in the end, she lost. Now everyone else is paying the price for her hubris.

Had to be said. Sorry.

I’m not necessarily his biggest fan, but at least Stephen Breyer understood that when a Supreme Court Justice decides to retire, and who will pick their replacement, is an important part of post-electoral politics.

Look, I’m a BIG believer in going hard and doing all the good you can, while you can. This goes doubly for people in positions of power, like politicians. Because guess what? Tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

This is another reason why I have such a problem with “pragmatism”… we won’t always win, but we must always fight for what is right. Settling for what you can get is one thing, but deliberately aiming low so as not to make waves or upset the conservative base is entirely different.

So IF you can get more good things™ done today, then you should go for it while the getting is still good. Time is a luxury and incrementalism favors the wealthy and powerful. Republican strategist Lee Atwater understood that stalling and delaying on a political outcome was just as good as winning the battle. Because stalling and delaying, with only minor cosmetic changes, maintains the status quo.

Democrats need to understand that “triangulating” and “pragmatically” waiting for a better time is precisely what Republicans want. It’s acquiescing.

I believe in what MLKjr called the fierce urgency of now, not the fierce urgency of pragmatically waiting for conservatives to decide on when would be a better time for progress.

It’s super easy to be “pragmatic” and wait just a bit longer when it’s not YOUR rights that are being denied and trampled on.

Anyway, Dianne Feinstein needs to retire. Now.

[decolonize-the-everything]

Hi :3

So someone said Kamala is the female Obama and I've been thinking about it....

And then did some internet sleuthing about it.

Hear me out

Didn't Dems use Obama to win Black voters after losing the previous election to Bush cuz Al Gore (like Clinton) lost?

And didn't they blame the 3rd party candidate Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss?? Much like they blamed Bernie Bros?? Even tho the truth was that al Gore was hardly better and lacked the charisma Bush had? (Again, like Trump?)

So are we sure this is actually democrats conceding anything at all?? Are we not sure they put Kamala in the WH just to adjust voters to the idea of her being president anyway? That maybe they do realize the need for change but have chosen to err on the side of token progress that keeps them in power...again?

Article from Dec 2010:

At first glance, the president and Harris have much in common: Both are mixed-race children of immigrants raised by a single mother; both are eloquent, telegenic big-city lawyers with strong liberal credentials who catapulted from relative obscurity to the national stage. And like the first African-American president, Harris has broken a long-standing barrier — she’s California’s first African-American attorney general and the first woman to hold the office.

[...]“She’s a rare talent who will be a national figure shortly,” said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton aide who is now a consultant in California. “People call her the female Obama. It’s more apt to say she is the female Obama that progressives thought they were voting for.”

Are we absolutely positive that we have been learning lessons from history; like even recent history even? Because she isn't actually much different from Obama at all and this was Obama's legacy:

People were then reassured by Obama and rather than voting for 3rd parties in 2012 like they said, they elected Obama again. Just like y'all tried to do with Biden. And definitely like what will happen under Kamala.

He even got people to vote for him cuz of his promise to secure abortion rights and he did this right:

But tell me how that stopped the supreme court from stripping it???

Don't fall for this again

Cuz people were fucking pissed after Obama weren't they. Progressives wouldn't put up with a moderate like Clinton even compared to Trump. And that was unexpected wasn't it, progress that they couldn't come back from. So they lost to Trump, but what a convenient reset! Suddenly settling wasn't so bad for the American people, huh? And y'all elected Biden.

Who, outside the homoerotic Biden/Obama memes, people didn't like (and I'd argue those memes are what made him likeable to the younger generations to begin with).

But things have been tense, haven't they? The displeasure of voters didn't completely go away when Biden remained a centrist. It wasn't enough, especially when he supported genocide. And now they give us Kamala after we wanted Biden to step down for supporting Israel?

....But she still supports Israel?

Nobody knows how/if progressives will show up for Kamala because we can all feel how much Kamala isn't pleasing anyone. The tension is still palpable. Democrats have made an awful bet.

And I am DONE.

Dems have been manipulating voters away from 3rd parties every single election while making promises they never keep good on, while doing NOTHING to actually protect any of us or make anything better. While killing people, deporting them, and justifying war crimes! While liberals promise to push them left and never do and ALSO tell everyone not to vote 3rd party "right now"

All they do is perpetuate the systems that serve each other. I mean we're in 2000 & 2008 again, politically. Already.

They will never ever systematically support progress the way that 3rd parties do. And they don't care to listen or change cuz they know they can Force you to vote for less by making sure that a centrist Democrat is always on the ticket with ballot access in every state and nobody else is.

They make sure if it in fact

If progress is what you want it's time to Genuinely start listening to people who tell you a vote for democrats is worthless for your goals.

I'm just fed up mexi-ojibwe american adult who grew up with shitty presidents and grew up with full access of the internet to educate myself about what led to this mess.

So are a LOT of other adults who feel this way!!!

And what we know led to this situation is the two party system. And how the system has been enabled by scared liberals who listen to fear-mongerering Democrats every election.

Democrats want history to repeat because it keeps them in power. Because what they do and how they treat you keeps them in power.

Is that what you want? To be treated like this in perpetuity for almost nothing in return?

Me neither.

So unless you have a better idea or plan to start burning shit down yourself then your most realistic option to break out of this abusive cycle is to vote 3rd party.

"vote blue in the primary, it's our only realistic option!" -> "if you don't vote blue you deserve trump" -> "can't you just be happy republican/trump lost?" -> quietly not doing much between elections-> "vote blue in the-" etc

Cycles don't end on their own, that's the thing about cycles in fact.

So vote 3rd party. Yeah it's scary. Yeah it might not work. But again, do you have a better idea? Because what we're doing and have been doing for the last 30 years, this "lesser evil" & "vbnmw" thing was the liberals' idea and that isn't working for any of us At All. Its keeping us here in this cycle where nothing gets better but it can Always get worse.

If you can't vote 3rd party in your state ask yourself why that is then do something about it.

Quit expecting democrats to give a shit about the equality you need when you've been protesting genocide for nearly a year and they still welcomed the war criminal for a conversation in the white house.

Any right you've won under democrats is as superficial as Obama's executive order and that's been proven.

⭐ Tldr ⭐

According to all available history: FUCK DEMOCRATS; You NEED to be supporting 3rd parties if you support progress and you need to do the work of getting their names out. Democrats DO fight and suppress 3rd parties. So its more work to support a 3rd party than a democrat, yeah.

But if progress is worth anything at all it should be worth at least trying to do the work it takes to get a viable 3rd party on the ballot.

DO THAT PLEASE.

Thank you

[lazyscience]

so there's something I feel like young leftists are not getting at all when they rail furiously about how "we keep voting for Democrats but they keep just pandering to the right, what are we supposed to DO to get them to change OTHER than not vote for them?"

It has to do with fundamental assumptions about what "governing" is supposed to mean in the modern era, and this is a conversation that has to happen culturally in and around what is happening at the ballot box in a lot larger sense than it is. putting in a readmore because this gonna get long and also ranty.

It also means I'm taking another Tumblr break because I can not, I CAN NOT with the current political discussion any more and even with terms blocked I'm seeing it, and I don't want to spend my evenings alternating between rage and depression, I get enough of that from the news.

This conversation was happening even earlier than this, but the timepoint at which it was first coming to a head and when I became familiar with it was 1994 and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". Prior to this point, the ethos on both sides of the aisle (in public) was that in general, a congressperson's job (especially in the House, a little less so in the Senate maybe) was while you were under the umbrella of one of the two parties, you were mostly looking out for the particular agenda of your state and only secondarily working towards a national agenda. And secondary to this idea, most of them agreed on basic principles that gridlock was bad (wouldn't produce anything useful/re-electable for your state), civil service employees and appointees weren't supposed to be blatant political operatives (there were, of course, but that was considered more sleazy and corrupt than "elections have consequences, hurr hurr") and that for the stability of the country, things like the debt ceiling were best mutually avoided.

So for the better part of the 20th century, the Democrats were more the party of regulation, the social safety net and the reality and use of powers on a federal level; the Republicans were the party of "leave these decisions to the individual states" (this is obviously a grotesque oversimplification, people have literally written dozens, probably hundreds, of scholarly books about this shit). And Newt Gingrich, ambitious little shit from an at the time deep red Republican state, said "you know what, we need to embrace a national party and federal control the way the Democrats have--because until then, WE can't control it." So the Contract With America was born - and the goal became instead of "well, whatever, as long as I can weasel out concessions for my state/special interests that hired me" the game ALSO became "demonstrate that federal government doesn't work by MAKING it not work." By using all the procedural stupid dirty tricks that a reactionary old bunch of white dudes that had just been through a war put into place to make any point of settled law that had happened basically as hard to change as fucking possible.

Now, the Democrats couldn't/didn't WANT to play by those rules, because their biggest and most popular successes (qualified, imperfect, but still) - Social Security, Medicaid, the civil rights movement, antitrust, worker protections, environmental protections - are all contingent on a federal government apparatus that actually fucking works. And now that the Republicans can win either by getting what they want OR by yelling "look, this process is clearly broken and doesn't work!", the only way Democrats can make sweeping changes without having to fight tooth and nail every step of the way is to have a majority in both houses of Congress, control the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.

Because again, the reactionary old white men who had just lived through a butt ton of social upheaval wanted to make it hard for one group of (rich white, male enfranchised) people to control another - and they literally at that time could not have envisioned the way the country would grow into both a far more unified AND polarized place that would take these safety rails and exploit them to block every achievement their opponent might make, whether or not it was actually in the best interests of the people they're representing.

(I mean, they should have, political parties and all that toxicity were not new to the British Empire before the colonies even existed, but well, I think we all know by now there's a lot of things they couldn't have imagined. See also: the second amendment)

So here's the deal - if you punish Joe Biden for being a confused corporate-friendly war-hawkish atrocity-enabling weenus - which he totally is sometimes! - you are kneecapping any actually progressive congressional candidates you elect unless you can also deliver 67+ solidly Democrat/Green/whatever the fuck Angus King is votes in the Senate, and 290+ equally staunch Democratic representatives. Because otherwise, that Republican President's just gonna veto everything they legislate that isn't what he wants. And yes, the Senate has to approve any federal judges or Supreme Court justices he wants to appoint - but again, the Republican party sees the federal court system being slow, backed up and impossible to use as a totally acceptable compromise in return for being able to block any significant Democratic legislation from going forward.

Since 1789, do you know how many vetoes have been overridden by supermajority? 109, out of 1,484.

Now, if you could GET that supermajority in the Senate and the House? You could amend the Constitution! You could make mail-in votes mandatory, and/or mandated paid time off for voting. You could mandate ranked-choice voting, so that leftists could vote for the candidate they actually want without splitting up the bloc to the advantage of the fash/fash-adjacent. You could do things like mandate that a Presidential election isn't valid until a minimum threshold number of votes has been achieved that's actual a majority of eligible voters, not just whatever fanatical minority shows up that day, so some asshole who won with 20 percent of eligible voters can't claim to have "a mandate from The People."

BUT WITHOUT THAT SUPERMAJORITY, VOTING TO PUNISH ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR NOT DOING THINGS THEY CANNOT FUCKING DOOOOOO MEANS NOTHING BUT LOSING FOR ALL OF US!

Especially when the other fucking asshole candidate wants to make it legal for the National Guard to LIVE FIRE WITH ACTUAL MILITARY BULLETS ON PROTESTORS, and the Supreme Court has just made it possible for him if elected to order that and have it not be illegal! If he wants to start deporting all Muslim immigrants like he was trying to push for last time he was elected, or round up LGBTQ people and put them in re-education camps, if he gets elected, he could do that now! Because crimes committed as "official acts" are no longer crimes!

So you want to not have to regularly make shitty compromises in the voting booth any more? Great, neither do I. Here are the only ways I see this going forward:

Get 2/3rd of the states of the union to call for an Article V constitutional convention - and be willing to have the process potentially hijacked by fash nutjobs at the state level if those 2/3rds aren't all Democratic-controlled. It's possible - I mean, the system was specifically designed to work that way - but the fact that a) an Article V convention has not successfully been called in the history of the US, and b) the only people advocating for that in the year 2024 are the actual fucking Heritage Foundation of the infamous Project 2025, Ben Shapiro of "but pussy doesn't get wet" fame, Greg "the solution to Uvalde is arming teachers" Abbott and similar nutjobs make me think that's not the safest way to get the outcome we want here.

Hold your noses and get 67 Senators and 290 Representatives elected that are either Democrats or who will reliably caucus with them like Socialists or Greens and have them pass a law to require ranked choice voting for the presidency - there's a chance it'll get a constitutional challenge from the Supreme Court, but there's not a solid precedent either forbidding or encouraging, and by the time it's an issue hopefully we're back in 5/4 liberal court territory if Alito and Thomas either retire or get canned. That will mean a lot of mid corporatist conservative Dems who will make decisions you don't like and don't want to support, but with an endgame of someday getting to stop doing that. This is honestly probably the most achievable, so it is also the one Republicans are fighting against hardest with gerrymandering and voter suppression, and they have banned it on the state level in Florida, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee and Idaho.

Let Republicans get elected to prove a point. This will result in an unknown but presumably acceptable to you number of deportations, convictions, legal abuse and deaths among people the Trump administration declares undesirable, including Muslims, Palestinians, trans people, anyone working in gender studies or race studies, the unhoused, potential child labor, and people of childbearing potential among others. This is not a threat to get you to fall in line. It is a prediction based on the previous behaviorand stated policy positions of Mr. Trump, the Republican National Convention, and the decision of the Supreme Court allowing his administration to carry out what would otherwise be crimes but for a president are "official actions" now apparently. It will also at the very least make easier the capture of the Supreme Court for another two or three decades during which no effective challenges can be brought for voter suppression, gerrymandering, and violent suppression of protest.

honest question: how, exactly, if it becomes an illegal act to talk about racism, queer liberation or police reform, are you proposing to get your better, more leftist candidates elected? I am so serious right now, why do you think after another four years of Trump provided he doesn't just immediately declare martial law like he already almost did once, do you think people would be willing to stick their necks out to identify themselves as enemies of the state? Think about the stranglehold Joseph McCarthy had on this country from 1947-1957.

[notasapleasure]

actually fuck it no, I'm done cringingly fawning to people who were never going to be happy about this. I so viscerally remember the misery of 2010, watching the wrangling go on through the morning and knowing Clegg had already made up his mind never to engage with Brown, knowing that power had flipped and in the crisis state following the recession we were going to get a government determined to cut and cut and cut and undo so much of the good that thirteen years had tried to entrench (SureStart centres, do you remember those, and the massive impact they had? Gone in England, Wales and Scotland, like they never existed. Libraries in rural areas! Remember when we had those? Regeneration in sad little market towns and unloved post-industrial areas, that was a thing once upon a time!). Utter misery on that Friday in 2010. I've rarely been angrier than I was that day. I will never forgive Clegg and many of his contemporaries. But I can still be delighted by the Lim Dems' 71 (SEVENTY-ONE!!) seats today. I was on the No Cuts march in London, and what an atmosphere. What hope, to think a new government formed on a hung parliament might actually listen to the approx. 1 million people who took to the streets (it wasn't as big as the Iraq protests, which also didn't work, but it was one of the biggest since, and it felt like it might be effective, in the flush of democratic fervour just following an election...) - and then the cuts went ahead anyway and we've had fourteen years of Tory entitlement and lies and misrule and sleaze and scandal and people who were fired for misconduct spinning round the roundabout and slotting right back into another job in high office after a token slap on the wrist. The repeated narrative that people want tax cuts and bootstraps rather than public services and basic rights...I'm so, so incredibly glad that's over. I cannot tell you how relieved I am.

Anyway, here are some things from the 2019 manifesto that we have just voted in with this government:

Bringing the railways back into public hands as each contract comes to an end. This is no different from Corbyn's policy. GB Energy, a nationalised energy provider, which is a development of the unplanned ambitions of 2019. Stopping the special treatment of fee-charging schools (by charging VAT on fees, it's an easier fix than removing their charitable status but achieves a similar thing). Building a vast number of new houses.

Other notables: no one is getting deported to Rwanda now. Do I like the rest of their language on immigration? No, but this is still a significant victory against what would have been a horrifying precedent. Unequivocal support for Ukraine's right to defend its soverign territory, no Putin appeasement. Also, a legal review of arms sales to Israel. It might not give the result I want to hear, I remain cautious, but the willingness to review this, and the committment to acknowledge the Palestinian state, is a big shift in the conversation from a sitting government that is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Votes for 16 year olds! Many of them may turn out to be reactionary little shits, but if they're old enough to join the army and fuck, they're old enough to vote. Scrapping the Troubles Legacy Act in Northern Ireland, which was designed to protect British actors who committed war crimes and has brutally reopened old wounds here. Good fucking riddance to that.

And I just think Ed Miliband should be allowed to have a little chaos and tax a few oil giants. Just for funsies :3

[mysandwichgiver]

OPINION

Our democracy is much more frail than Biden

by Will Bunch | Columnist

Published July 2, 2024, 12:04 p.m. ET

Do newspaper columnists know that democracy’s closer to death than Biden?

One of the first things they teach doctors in medical school is the imperfect but necessary art of triage, the technique used on a battlefield or during some other mass-casualty event to determine who is most gravely wounded and who needs immediate attention during a crisis when the system is overwhelmed, and clear-headed thinking will save lives.

Clearly, this is not something that is taught in journalism school.

Over the course of a remarkable weekend, I saw the best minds of my boomer generation destroyed by madness — newspaper columnists and other big shots convinced they were cosplayers in a real-world episode of The West Wing, saving America by giving chief of staff Leo McGarry the best words to convince an ailing President Bartlet that it’s time to step down.

The soft clacking of these keyboard commandos turned into a stampede as the nation’s pundits, its editorial-page poobahs, mega-rich but anonymous donors, and Democratic horse whisperers competed to outdo each other on The Daily Rip or in “the paper of record,” or wherever they thought the actual frail president, Joe Biden, might be paying attention.

Dropping names — Whitmer! Shapiro! Warnock! — like a groupie backstage at a heavy-metal concert, floating wildly implausible scenarios, stretching so hard for historical analogies that several probably blew out a hamstring, America’s pundit class managed to achieve a level of groupthink that surpassed the brainwashers of The Manchurian Candidate. All argued that for the good of the country he loves, Biden — hoarse, barely audible, and visibly confused a few times during Thursday’s Atlanta presidential debate — must immediately end his candidacy.

Meanwhile, in the actual America that less resembles The West Wing than the disaster flick Don’t Look Up, two comets simultaneously bore down on America in the hours leading up to its 248th — and possibly last — birthday as a democratic republic.

First, there is Donald Trump — desperate to avoid his sentencing for his 34 felony convictions, firing off racist insults about “Black jobs” and “bad Palestinians,” and carrying around a 900-page blueprint for American dictatorship called Project 2025 — streaking into the cosmic void of our troubled republic.

Meanwhile, don’t look up but a thoroughly corrupt and compromised Supreme Court is blazing a second trail toward American autocracy. In a flurry of body punches over the last several days, the nation’s highest court gutted the federal government’s ability to regulate fat-cat corporate polluters or stock swindlers, but said poor folks who sleep outside because there’s nowhere else to go can be arrested. Then, with a fierce right hook, it issued a 6-3 partisan ruling that will help Trump — who appointed three of them — evade justice while placing all future presidents above the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the three liberal naysayers, read her blistering minority opinion from the bench Monday morning, arguing that the court’s finding that a president performing official acts can be immune from criminal prosecution “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” She ended with the words, “with fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

I wish Justice Sotomayor had the bandwidth and the energy to work a second shift as editorial page editor at one of our major newspapers.

At Time magazine (yes, it still exists), the cover of its new issue contained just one word, “Panic” — not at the prospect of an American dictator with the seeming power to have the military assassinate his enemies, but at Biden’s health. At the New York Times (yes, it still exists), an editorial board that considered it pointless, or whatever, to call for Trump to leave the race after those 34 felony convictions — as well as the civil rape and financial fraud verdicts and the two impeachments and three other pending indictments — made its grand pronouncement that it’s Biden who must go. Other papers jumped on the bandwagon, including the swing state Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which in the 1950s and ‘60s won Pulitzers for its courage in taking on Southern racists before deciding instead to appeal to their grandchildren.

And look, I’m not going to argue that Biden’s health is not an issue. His debate performance was troubling, but I also think those of us determined not to see Donald Trump become president again should take a deep breath — even if that’s not the clickbait headline that many are eager to write. Biden needs to do more to assure the public about his energy level, and we also need to see the polls. Any decision should be based on the paramount thing — the thing that should be getting 72-point headlines: stopping dictatorship. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote Monday in her dissent, this is a “five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance.”

The power of Monday’s dissents by Jackson and Sotomayor form quite the contrast with the speculative flights of fancy about a brokered convention in Chicago, which, it’s worth noting, have largely come from white male boomer types. Many Black and brown and female voices, on the other hand, are urging Biden to stay as the only realistic hope — warts and all — of beating Trump in November. Maybe people who in one way or another know the horror of being treated as a second-class citizen understand the risk of dictatorship in a way that white dudes who’ve always been OK do not.

Most journalists want to be seen as savvy (or not naïve, essentially the same thing) and influential. Many editorial writers and columnists are still hurting from the fact that Trump was elected in 2016 with zero major print endorsements. They think calling for Trump to drop out would make them look foolish now that the Republican Party has devolved into a dangerous cult. But a demand for Biden to drop out might actually happen — so that’s savvy, right?

Except maybe the dangerous cult is the more important crisis, especially when it carries a printed guide to dictatorship and holds six justices in its back pocket. To focus on the actual threat we are facing, I wish America’s top pundits would spend less time watching reruns of The West Wing and maybe pick up a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

The reality of what’s happening in July 2024 — that an authoritarian-minded president, with help from a politicized and unethical Supreme Court, is on track to lead a nation where all power is being vested in him, his MAGA movement, and the corporate polluters — is THE story, and Biden’s health is a subplot in that drama. The current president is walking slowly, but it’s the American Experiment that’s on a ventilator. Journalists aren’t doing their job: performing basic triage and focusing on the sickest patient in the room. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.