#republicans and democrats are on the same side

[jasper-dreams]

I'll explain why it's complicated.

Because these rightwing "democrats" in question? They're the ones who have racheted the Overton Window so far to the right that Nazis have a chance. When MLK talked about centrists who cared more about Order than Justice? He was talking about them. Because they didn't just back but pushed for genocide in Palestine. Because they were primary architects of our busted prison system. Because they built the concentration camps that Trump abuses. Because they chose to run with Neocons over leftists. Because they're pro police state and crack down on student dissent. Because they were instrumental in the mass die offs of unions in the US. They're the same sort of monied "democrat" who fought the New Deal tooth and nail.

Because they enable the further right assholes, and are every bit as much of the problem -- /both/ dishes are poisoned and lead to fascism.

Like the biggest evil is Republicans, MAGA idiots especially, sure. But the biggest actual obstacle to things getting better is neo liberals, who will paint everyone else as responsible for their mistakes but themselves. Same now as it was before FDR was elected in a landslide... despite scraping by into the democratic nomination by the barest of margins.

And, let's cut to the chase. At root? The problem is people like /you/ who just blindly do what they're told, rather than stand on principle. It's specifically because of your short sided tribal view of politics that everything keeps shifting towards fascism. The GOP and rightwing democrats are using you, and the solution to this problem, sadly for us all, because history seems clear that your are incapable of such self reflection, lies in you waking up to this so that you might stop abetting it.

Fucking stop going to bat for Neoliberals like Biden and Harris. We need to do better. Stop coyly blaming leftists for the mess you made and take a long hard look in the mirror. And maybe don't sit so goddam fucking high on your horse when you're tacitly backing people who admit to genocide.

/rant

In a country where the only real options are “Democrats” or “Nazis who will hurt everyone” the only moral thing to do is not only to vote for the Democrats but also do whatever you can to talk other people into voting for them too

When offered two dishes one of which is poison you don’t complain that the one that’s not poison is overcooked

[forsetti]

On Consequences: What About Fuck Around And Find Out Don't You Get?

As anyone with two functioning brain cells could have predicted, people who voted for Trump and those who sat out the last election because “both sides are equally bad,” are experiencing the “Find Out” portion of “Fuck Around, Find Out.”

From MAGA farmers in the Heartland whining about losing their livelihoods, to “Latinos For Trump” voters crying about their abuela being deported, to people who voted for Trump who are finding out they are losing their government jobs due to DOGE, the Find Out Portion of Trump’s second administration is just getting started.

Am I surprised? Fuck no! What would happen if he won again was blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain, moral compass, and basic understanding of…well…just about anything.

Do I care? Fuck no! It isn’t the fault of those of us who threw up warning flags, shot off flares, and screamed until we were hoarse that the things we said were going to happen if he got reelected, happened. That burden of responsibility is not on us, no matter how hard some try to make it so.

Should I care? According to those “Finding Out,” the media, and the moral scolds on the left, I’m supposed to care. Their arguments for caring come in three different forms: Compassion, Sympathy, and Non-Alienation.

I’m supposed to be compassionate towards those who are suffering, regardless of the reasons for their pain.

Really? The people who have spent the past twenty years bitching about participation trophies want one now because they are on the losing end of their play and want me to comfort them with orange slices, a big trophy that has “We Are Not Losers,” engraved on it, and a hug? Hell, even if I believed in a participation trophy culture, I wouldn’t extend it to those who voted for Trump or didn’t vote in 2024.

A soccer team of kids who get beat 20-0 at least tried their best. They put in the work at practices, played the best game they could, and lost. MAGA voters didn’t’ do jack. They didn’t put forth any effort to understand any issues. They walked onto the field of play, handed in their lineup, and didn’t do another damn thing. The people who sat out the election did even less.

What do I mean by, “they didn’t do another damn thing”? All the information about the Democratic Party’s agenda, Kamala Harris’ record, and policies were readily available for anyone to see. So too, were Trump’s. All the things Trump is doing were things he, or those close to him, said they were going to do. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING!

Why in the fuck would I be compassionate to anyone who willfully denied and/or ignored this?

Fuck them! My compassion goes to the people who are going to suffer from Trump’s policies who did the right things, made the right choices, and actually put forth an effort. That’s who deserves my compassion. Not some farmer in Iowa who put a fifty-foot billboard of “Trump 2024” on his land who is now scrambling to save the farm that has been in his family for generations. Actions, choices, and elections have consequences. Hence the “Find Out” part of FOFA.

Along the same lines, I don’t have sympathy for these people for what they are going through.

Do I wish these terrible things to happen to people who made bad choices? Not really. But, that is the only way they might (very heavy emphasis on “might,”) learn. Until the consequences of their actions are severe enough, and maybe not even then, people are not going to learn. If they keep getting bailed out, financially, emotionally, culturally… there is no incentive for them to learn.

How many times do Republican policies have to fuck over rural America before they learn a lesson? It’s been almost all of my sixty-four years and they not only haven’t learned a lesson, they’ve doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their loyalty to the GOP.

How many times do Democratic policies have to bail out these same people before they get any credit for it? Obama and Biden not only saved the US auto and energy sectors but helped make them better. Their reward for this? Having areas dominated by these industries vote Republican. This is just one of hundreds of examples like this I could give.

Am I supposed to have compassion and sympathy for these people? Fuck that!

I’m pretty sure the people pushing the “compassion and sympathy” arguments know they are pushing garbage which is why many of them have shifted to the more nuanced, though equally garbage, “let’s not alienate the Find Out crowd because that won’t get them on your side.”

This argument might sound reasonable except those touting it never can give examples of it working. Obama bent over backward to accommodate Republicans. The Affordable Care Act was more Republican-based than Democratic. What was his reward for this? Being called a Marxist socialist who was creating death panels that would end Pappy’s and Memaw’s lives, to provide on-demand abortion to drug-using moochers from San Francisco.

I have yet to see anyone provide a real example of a Democratic statement, position, or policy that actually changed a MAGA’s mind. The argument being made is basically:

1-Bad things are happening to Republicans because of their choices. 2-Dems should not point this out because it will alienate Republicans. 3-If Democrats don’t point this out, then Republicans will learn the error of their ways.

The faulty logic is in believing what Dems do or not do has any influence over Republicans. There is no causation here.

It is understandable, on some level, why people might believe this argument. Hundreds, if not thousands, of articles and even more media hot takes have been put forth pushing the causation between what Dems say/do and Republicans’ choices.

It���s not the Republicans’ fault they support a racist, misogynist, criminal. The Dems made them by (fill in the blank.)

The paradigm of this causation argument is whenever a Republican comes out and says something blatantly racist the justification they give for doing so and the excuse given for them by the media is, “If Dems hadn’t called them “racist,” they wouldn’t have said/done something racist.”

No ownership of their actions. No personal responsibility from The Party Of Personal Responsibility. They flip the causation completely around to justify their actions. It wasn’t what they said or did that led to someone calling them a “racist,” it was someone calling them a “racist,” that did it. It is Bizarro World Logic.

Today’s Republicans don’t want compromise. That concept has been beaten out of them through years of Newt Gingrich tactics, Rush Limbaugh talking points, and FOX News. As long as this is the mindset of conservatives, there is NOTHING Democrats can do or say that will not alienate them.

Everything the Democratic Party stands for would have to be abandoned, to partially satisfy MAGA. As the Democratic Party, whose rights are we willing to sacrifice, to win the vote of the farmer in Iowa who is upset Trump’s policies are going to cost him his farm?

I don’t fucking negotiate with terrorists. I especially don’t negotiate with white supremacist domestic terrorists. Once you do this, they will ALWAYS demand more. Roe v Wade WAS the compromise when it comes to abortion. How did that turn out? Were the right satisfied? Did they accept it and move the fuck on? Nope. Now that SCOTUS has said that abortion is up to the states, do you think the right is happy? Nope. Until they get 100% of what they want, they will never satiated.

If you understand the nature of modern-day American conservatism and its ties to Evangelical Christianity, then you know, without a doubt, they cannot be reasoned with, no amount of evidence, compassion, or sympathy, is going to get them to change their minds, at least not on any meaningful level.

This is why there are no fucks left in my basket to hand out to anyone, no matter how much they are suffering, for the choices they made on November 5th, 2024.

All my fucks are reserved for those who made the right choices but are going to suffer anyway.

The pragmatist, realist, and ethicist in me are fine with this. As my mom used to tell me, “You can’t change people who don’t want to change and until they hit bottom, they will never change.” Applying this to anyone, especially people who care about isn’t easy. Applying it to a good chunk of your fellow citizens is perhaps more difficult, but more important.

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: What does Trump want to do with Gaza?

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is unbiased and factual. This info is as of 2/15/25

On February 4th, the President and Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu met in the Oval Office and held a press conference. During this conference, the President discussed the current situation in Gaza and presented a proposal that involves relocating the people living in Gaza and having the United States take control of the area for the purpose of redeveloping it. Here's some context:

If you're not familiar, the conflict between Israel and Gaza is deeply controversial, with both sides feeling strongly about their right to the land. Israel views Gaza as part of its homeland, and so do the Palestinians. This is the heart of the ongoing conflict, which has lasted for thousands of years. This is very oversimplified, so I would recommend doing other research.

Now, back to the current state of Gaza. It’s been 15 months since the start of the war on October 7, 2023. The debris from this conflict is 17 times the total amount from all previous Israel-Gaza conflicts since 2008, and the cleanup could take up to 21 years. The UN estimates that two-thirds of the buildings have been destroyed or damaged, and in most areas, running water and electricity are nonexistent. While southern Gaza has more humanitarian aid, it still doesn’t come close to meeting the needs of its 1.8 million residents. Since the war began, about 150,000 Palestinians have left Gaza, though many others have stayed, partly due to financial reasons and cultural ties.

In addition to the current war, Hamas took control of Gaza in 2005, after defeating the Fatah political party in elections. Since then, Gaza's economy has collapsed, unemployment has soared, and the military presence has grown. This is partly because of Hamas, but also due to the blockade imposed by both Israel and Egypt, which limits goods and people from entering or leaving Gaza.

So why is President Trump discussing Gaza’s redevelopment? The damage is immense, but according to Trump, Gaza is a valuable waterfront area with opportunities to create jobs and housing for Palestinians. President Trump has talked about how Gaza has been a symbol of death and destruction for decades and suggests that rather than allowing the same people to rebuild, the U.S. should take control and redevelop the area. Here’s what he said:

“I also strongly believe that the Gaza Strip, which has been a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades... it should not go through a process of rebuilding and occupation by the same people that have really stood there and fought for it and lived there and died there. Instead, we should go to other countries with humanitarian hearts and there are many of them that want to do this... The people will be able to live in comfort and peace. We’ll make sure something really spectacular is done. They’ll have peace... they’re not going to be shot at and killed...”

The U.S. would take responsibility for the area, dismantling any unexploded bombs, leveling destroyed buildings, and creating economic development that could provide jobs and housing for Palestinians. Trump further suggested that neighboring wealthy countries could help fund this effort. He said:

“The only reason the Palestinians want to go back to Gaza is they have no alternative. It’s right now a demolition site. They can instead occupy a beautiful area with homes and safety. We’ll create an economic development plan that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing.”

Following these remarks, the President was asked if U.S. troops would go to Gaza to secure the area. He responded that the U.S. would do whatever is necessary. Later, on Truth Social, he wrote:

“The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting. The Palestinian people, like Chuck Schumer (who, by the way, is the Senate Minority Leader), would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities... They would have a chance to be happy, safe, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams, would slowly and carefully begin construction on what would become one of the most spectacular developments on Earth. No soldiers would be needed. Stability would reign.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu did not explicitly endorse Trump’s proposal, but he laid out three primary goals for Israel:

Destroy Hamas’s military and governing capabilities

Secure the release of all hostages

Ensure Gaza never threatens Israel again

In discussing these goals, Netanyahu praised Trump’s approach, saying:

“I believe that your willingness to puncture conventional thinking... your willingness to think outside the box... will help us achieve these goals.”

Trump’s son-in-law and former foreign policy adviser, Jared Kushner, has echoed the sentiment that Gaza is a valuable area for economic redevelopment. Trump also suggested that U.S. involvement could transform Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Public and global opinions on this plan vary significantly. A poll by the Jewish Policy Institute found that 70% of Israelis support the proposal, although some view it as unrealistic. On the other hand, 30% of Israelis oppose it. The Palestinian Authority rejected the plan, calling it a violation of international law, specifically regarding the forced displacement of people. Saudi Arabia and several European countries also expressed concerns, particularly about the potential impact on Palestinians’ human rights.

Importantly, for this proposal to move forward, Israel would need to take full control of Gaza after winning the war and then hand it over to the U.S.. This raises humanitarian and legal questions, as displacing Palestinians during the redevelopment could pose significant challenges.

[lastcatghost]

[short-wooloo]

I cannot overstate this enough, but with the threat of trump and project 2025, there is GENUINELY a chance that this year's pride month could be the last...

I want y'all to really think about that, think about it when you hear or think "I'm not voting" or "both sides are the same

[lady-raziel]

It wouldn’t be a good thing and would certainly throw a catastrophic wrench in everything but the next 12-15 hours would be the absolute funniest time for Joe Biden to go on tv and say “actually I’m a Trump supporter now, after hearing about all this for so long I’ve come around to it and think I’m voting MAGA 😎”

[blazkoshatchets]

Democrats cannot offer you meaningful solutions because in the end, their checks are signed by the same corpos as republicans. Sure, they might go a little easier on marginalized social groups, but working class is equally fucked - as demonstrated, for example, by the minum wage not changing at all since 2009, despite there definitely being times when the supposedly more "progressive" party held enough sway. Hell, Biden was told last year (late, but still in time where it could be used to make a difference) that he literally is immune from any and all prosecution for his actions as president, and the only time he stepped out of line is to save his own son. These people are not on your side.

Nothing quite drives home the uselessness of the Democratic party as an agent of change as watching a 20-year-old episode of the Simpsons where a problem we still have today is the focus and hearing the same arguments and non-solutions that people like AOC and Kamala Harris are parroting today.

[cyanide-sippy-cup]

All I've seen on the left this election has been a loop of

"I'm not voting Harris cause she's pro-genocide"

"But then you're letting Trump into power! It'll be on you when trans kids die!"

and

"I'm voting Harris cause I don't want Hitler Jr in charge again"

"So Palestine doesn't matter to you? Someone finally showed their true colors!"

I feel like we're saying the same things here. Some coordination would be nice, people.

[sordidamok]

Texas is Texas because white people moved in and "squatted" on land that was occupied by indigenous people. Abbott isn't against squatting - he's against people who aren't white.

[iteratedextras]

People don't think progressives want to racially discriminate against them based on some centuries-old remnant of history. People believe that progressives want to racially discriminate against them because progressives tried to do that (such as with healthcare) within the past five years, and elected Democrats didn't come out against it.

Regarding the DOGE boy getting re-hired, though...

It's pretty explicitly a negotiating tactic.

They're hoping that by pausing enforcement against right-racist statements (though without doing explicitly right-racist policy (e.g. they are imposing "colorblindness" on universities)), they can create leverage by imposing a penalty on the left and then offering to remove it later.

The idea is that they'll trade restarting enforcement against right-racist statements and ideology in exchange for the left coalition restarting enforcement against left-racism.

There are a couple of problems with this.

The first is that progressives genuinely don't seem to understand how non-progressives interpret the weird shit they say, and they especially don't seem to understand how people interpret the combination of weird things they say.

It doesn't even seem to occur to them that someone could be combining their strange statements together, so they don't get that they combined an argument that we should do racial discrimination everywhere ("equity" and "race conscious" policy), with arguments that this program should not be allowed to be stopped via small-d democratic means ("hate speech isn't free speech" + selective definitions of "hate speech," "demographic change will render Republicans non-competitive").

They threatened people... somehow without realizing that they threatened people. From their perspective, suddenly a lot of people got very angry, either without explanation, or because they are "selfishly trying to protect their advantage."

They don't seem to understand that anyone is or was trying to negotiate with them. They seem to think that "free speech" is a social rule, not a mechanical one.

The second problem is that no one is actually in charge of the left coalition for the right-wingers to negotiate with.

The Democratic base are incredibly loyal, and will routinely defend each element of the combination of positions the Democrats take, either directly, or through denial, or deflection, and so on. They'll defend these positions as though they came from an actual guy.

At the same time, Democratic positions appear to be determined by special interest groups. As Democratic clients, there is a certain strategic logic to their behavior, and legitimization based on past Democratic behavior.

This creates the illusion that there is someone in charge of the Democratic coalition, and that his long-term strategic vision is highly authoritarian. The shadow of an absent leader looks way scarier than an actual leader would be.

Thus the current administration's strategy, which could be described as "a financial strategic bombing campaign." It's assumed that moral appeals won't work (because they already didn't), only that "imposing consequences" will work.

Of course, since they are attempting to negotiate with someone who doesn't exist, then the damage they cause can't force this asshole to come to the negotiating table; it can only, at most, reduce left-wing organizing power.

This suggests that the high-conflict equilibrium will continue until an actual leader comes about on the left side, who can negotiate and credibly enforce a new binding agreement.

(I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Republicans win elections about 50% of the time. If institutions like universities are to avoid being at risk of major funding cuts after every Democratic election loss, they need to have supermajority political support.)

Honestly the other thing I've gotten from reading the Library of America stuff on slavery and Jim Crow is the extent to which the racist is terrified that someday *he* might be treated like he treats his slaves.

The rhetoric of slave-holders is full of wounded anger that anybody would trample on their freedoms. Racist mobs would rampage through black neighborhoods, and the ostensible spark was that the blacks were about to rebel.

And what is truly remarkable to me is that people can so directly refuse the golden rule, they can become incensed and terrified at the thought that someone else might treat them like they treat others.

And also, in the American case, it really is directly a fear that whites might be treated like blacks were and are.

There's a feverish fear of anti-white racism (and resentment, always resentment) in Republican circles right now, and, like, look, anybody can be racist against anybody else, but the Vice President stepped in to make sure that Marko Elez didn't resign from DOGE after it came out that Elez had posted things like "I was racist before it was cool" and "Normalize Indian Hate" and "You couldn't pay me to marry outside my ethnicity"

The same people who are certain that every diversity statement is coded anti-white race hatred will argue, with a straight face, "Look, you can't assume someone is racist just because they openly call themselves a racist"

A tremendous fear of anti-white race hatred can live side by side with a complete endorsement, or at the very least an utter apathy towards racism aimed outwards at others.

It's a sick, frightening dynamic. It's no way to live.

[hellscape-halogens]

How democratic presidential campaign merch feels

photo source // pinterest

[nomaishuttle]

not 2 like. detract from how deplorable the rest of congress is but. i am glad to see that somebody from a red state esp a republican did the right thing

[lunammoon]

i wish more than anything that people online actually got Vivienne bc currently i have to defend her far more than i would want to because so many people don't GET her and end up accusing her of being the wrong kind of annoying and so i have to defend her as if she doesn't remind me of one of my most frustrating to talk to cousins

[beesandwasps]

Well, now, that’s a historically debatable proposition.

The thing about the Democratic Party as it stands now is that its strategies have already failed. Therefore: historically, any proposal which was rejected because it would have caused the failure of the party’s candidate was in fact as viable as the one they did, in fact, choose to pursue.

There have been two major points since the Clinton administration where blind support of a bad candidate/campaign which lost anyway very explicitly permitted the Democratic leadership to attempt exactly the same kind of bad candidate/campaign again later, losing the second time as well:

Al Gore ran a campaign which amounted to “if you elect me I promise you won’t even notice it’s a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican”. (Despite the party’s attempts to blame his loss in Florida on third party voters, according to exit polls there were something like 10 times as many registered Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush. When asked about it, the most common reason was “I couldn’t tell the difference between the two, so I voted for the one who also promised to cut taxes”. This was a losing strategy.) But since the eventual vote counts indicated that Gore should have won Florida anyway had there been no intervention by the Supreme Court, they felt justified in that campaign, so John Kerry used the same strategy in 2004… and lost. Had Gore suffered severe penalties for promising to be Republican Lite™, Kerry would presumably not have done so, and might conceivably have won.

Hillary Clinton ran a campaign in which — immediately after winning the primaries — she pivoted to a strategy of kicking the base in the teeth and chasing Republican votes on the strength of “hey, look, Republicans, I can be just as conservative and hateful as your guy, but more polite!” This, very predictably, lost — quite aside from the fact that most people hated Hillary Clinton personally, deliberately telling your own base to shut up is ridiculously bad politics, exactly the kind of thing that an imbecile like her would do; any honest analysis of her performance in Congress and as Secretary of State would have concluded that her lack of actual competence and foresight would give her trouble managing a small-town Denny’s, let alone running a country, but of course the party was not interested in giving any honest analysis — not when her husband was such a major figure. But because Democrats supported her despite her shortcomings (exit polls said that more Sanders supporters voted for her in 2016, by percentage, than her supporters voted for Obama in 2008 when she was the loser of the primary), Kamala Harris felt free to run the exact same campaign, even going to far as to feed hundreds of millions of dollars to the same consultants. And, of course, she lost too. Had voters held Clinton responsible for her ridiculously awful campaign, Harris might not have run the campaign again, or at least not hired those same consultants who apparently gave her really bad advice.

This was repeated on a smaller scale all over the country in Congressional races — the party was never punished for catering to Joe Lieberman by handing him the 2000 VP slot, so they were emboldened to back the Senatorial candidacies of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom, like Joe Lieberman, had already demonstrated in the House that they would gladly hold the party’s platform for ransom and even side with Republicans on a regular basis.

Democrats gained no ground by supporting these obvious losers — not the first time, when those candidates themselves lost, nor in the secondary elections where, emboldened by the lack of consequences, the party made the same mistakes. The only way to scare the party into finally actually listening to what its own base wants is for the base to admit that a loss is inevitable and use that loss. The failure to take the bull by the horns has led to Trump’s second term and a Democratic caucus in Congress that’s full of people who don’t even agree with their own voters.

[nando161mando]

Same coin, different sides.