she/her
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
While the plan you've outlined in your argument my feel good, it isn't particularly useful for shifting the Democrats to the left. Under this plan, the causalities of this and future Republican administrations will be the cost of doing business.
Consider leveraging power by voting for Democrats in elections to benefit the people who will otherwise be harmed by future Republican administrations. edit: typo
This is what the incoming Trump administration wants to do to the US.
Uh huh. Are you only able to cooperate with people who agree with you in every way?
We should not cooperate with fascists especially when they don't believe in climate change. It would be a waste of time since they want to kill us and want to pollute as much as possible.
And yours is going out of its way to manufacture enemies.
My argument didn't tell the MAGA movement to be fascists. A progressive and socialist populist movement could rally most people without needing for anyone to hate minority groups or disregard scientific consensus.
Again, sure. Not worth fighting over the phrasing.
Good, so you agree then? We should move the Democratic Party to the left. Democrats should champion systemic change and wealth redistribution. edit: typo
He doesn’t say anything else on climate, and this is not “abandoning action on climate change.” The people already in the tent don’t agree on everything, and they have not “abandoned action” because of it.
The people who don't agree with climate change don't believe it exists.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-victory-sweeping-climate-consequences
This is not “uncritically supporting men’s rights.”
Your argument is focusing on the bait and ignoring the switch.
Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don’t decide for them.
We are listening to them. This is what they are saying.
This time around, one of the attack lines is “your body, my choice.”
https://www.vox.com/politics/384792/your-body-my-choice-maga-gender-election
Sure, if that’s how you need to frame it to fit your worldview go ahead. Just please try to find agreement when feminist framing is not used, because it usually won’t be.
That's how we're framing it. If that's not appealing to some people, there's a mainstream fascist political party they can join. We don't need two mainstream fascist parties.
By the way, the worldview is that all people are equal. And that inequality harms us all, but some people are harmed more than others. People on the left have no interest in a worldview where women are second class citizens.
Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good.
The left has never fully grappled with the wreckage of fifty years of neoliberalism, which has left legions of Americans adrift as local places are hollowed out, rapacious profit seeking cannibalizes the common good, and unchecked new technology separates and isolates us.
But then finished by uncritically supporting men’s rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.
But here's the thing - then you need to let people into the tent who aren't 100% on board with us on every social and cultural issue, or issues like guns or climate.
Listen to poor and rural people, men in crisis. Don't decide for them.
It fits the description to a T. We don't have time for 50% or 0% action on climate change. The window to avert key tipping points that will have catastrophic consequences for the Earth's climate is now.
As a trans person, I am not interested in 50% or 0% of my rights. I would like my right to exist, 100% of the time.
We should push back on some of the more fringe men's rights groups. No one is entitled to a state mandated girlfriend. But it is probably worth understanding how patriarchy harms men because inequality harms us all.
They didn't show the entire tweet chain. Murphy starts off saying we should abandon neoliberalism which is good. But then finished by uncritically supporting men's rights, abandoning social issues, and abandoning action on climate change.
He's calling for Democrats to move to the right. The big tent he's pitching is fascism. A true populist movement that champions socialism and progressive causes can bring people together while also championing these issues.
We needed to win this election so there would be future elections. And so that those elections would use rank choice or one of the systems listed.
does it require every state to agree?
Yes. It's baked into Article V which is about amendments. The last line is the relevant line.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but presumably an amendment cannot self-reference the article that amendments are derived from. Otherwise, we could just amend Article V to remove the last line of text and then amend the Senate as much as we wanted with another.
I could be wrong. Maybe the Founders were hoping that the future generations would notice this, but enough slave owners at the time wouldn't and sign it.
That's a clever and funny strategy. And who knows we may end up wanting to do that or something similar. But what we need isn't the certainty of a Democrat majority and a Republican minority, but majority rule.
Creating lots of states out of DC would solve our current dilemma of Republican overrepresentation, but it would not solve minority rule. We need to reform the institutions of our society from the ground up. The House and Senate each need a thousand seats, and the president and Supreme Court need to be elected by popular vote to name a few. All of these are possible to change, assuming bicameral legislatures are worthwhile to keep. Even the Senate, but it requires every state to agree.
If we had ranked choice voting there would be more viable political parties and we would probably have fewer independent voters. I voted for Harris and Walz, but I'm registered Independent. I don't see the reason to register as a Democrat when I want socialism and they don't. Maybe if Democrats change for the better or we get ranked choice voting in the future I would register for a party. Vote Blue!
Genocide and war aren't mutually exclusive. The Holocaust happened during WWII.
No, it's utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn't even a political position.
Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It's time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris' words is not useful.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
eunt domus
Spoilers for Life of Brian, which I still need to see. But seems pretty funny.
And removing the filibuster will serve the christo-fascist agenda just as well as anything else.
It takes one vote for the Republicans to remove the filibuster. If the Republicans gain the majority in the Senate, there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop them. It's an honor system. The filibuster ties the hands of the pro-democracy majority. The christo-fascist minority is free to obstruct when they are out of power and free to remove it when they are in power. Which the Republicans will do, because fascists are bad-faith actors.
You can try to hand-wave it away and act like I’m pointing this out for the “sound bites” (?), but it’s simply a fact.
"They did it first!" is literally a sound bite for the press. The Republicans were always going to remove the filibuster to get Supreme Court nominations through. Blaming the Democrats based on what they did previously was a post hoc fallacy to justify their actions.
Perhaps you should look around. Half the country fully supports those christo-fascists, and they seem a lot more armed, a lot more organized, a lot more politically entrenched, and a lot more strategic.
FAAFO
You’re right, they will probably remove the filibuster when they get in power, and you’ll get your wish.
Wanting a functioning, majority rule democracy isn't the same as a christo-fascist dictatorship. By getting rid of the filibuster under a Democrat controlled Senate we will, in theory, be able to utilize systemic change to solve existential crises such as climate change and redistribute wealth to fix wealth inequality.
So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.
No, unlike your argument, I'm not arguing we split hairs over semantics.
she will never reach the vast majority of those people.
Unless.
She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.
Republicans are bad faith actors. They will remove the filibuster whether Democrats do it or not. The Republican's intention is to form a christo-fascist dictatorship.
Our society is in need of systemic change and wealth redistribution. The time to act is now to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change.
All you need to change the filibuster is a majority of votes. There is no "they did it first clause" in the Constitution. That's a post hoc justification for sound bites.
Democrats lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for most presidential nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, when Republicans tried to debilitate the Obama administration by obstructing his cabinet picks.
Republicans lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for confirming Supreme Court nominees when the filibuster got in their way. Republicans are bad faith actors who only care about power. No amount of a safe guards will tie the hands of bad faith actors when they are in power. If Republicans take power, they will get rid of the filibuster as soon as it is convenient for them to pass legislation.
All the filibuster does is entrench minority rule even further. It makes Democrats need a supermajority when they were already representing over 41 million more voters in the Senate in 2021.
41,549,808.
The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&t=31s