#after voting for the candidate who is the least evil with an actual chance of winning | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

qqueenofhades · 4 years

Text

Okay, y'all. Time to do this one more time. Let the fact that there are so many of these posts right now reinforce the point. Many of you already know this, and I see and love you, but for anyone still ~undecided about their choice, should they be an American citizen of voting age on November 3, 2020:

Time to not be. It was time a long, long while ago, but I am going to have to say it again.

Primary season is over. The endless fine-tooth combing of candidates' policies and positions is over. We are all deeply well aware that the candidates on the Democratic ticket, being human beings and establishment politicians, are flawed. "BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS POSITION FROM 19/ 20-WHENEVER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR WHY IT'S TERRIBLE TO VOTE FOR -- "

No. Stop. Just stop. Stop threatening to hold the rest of us hostage, in the middle of a pandemic, the Great Depression, and racial inequality and protests on a scale not seen from the 1960s, because you did not get Barbie Dream Candidate. That is the behavior of terrorists and toddlers. If your supposedly enlightened morally pure ideology does not involve any action to mitigate the harm that is directly in front of you, it isn't worth a shit as an ideology actually devoted to helping people. If your approach to politics is to shout about how Pure your ideas are on twitter and tear down anyone working within a system of flawed choices to do the good that they can: you're not helping, and frankly, your constant threats to withhold your suffrage as a punishment to us aren't convincing the rest of us that we really need to listen to you or that you have anyone's best interests at heart. The Online Left TM is as much a vacuous, self-reinforcing noise chamber as the Online Right TM, and can sometimes tend to be even more dangerous.

I was saying this in 2016. A lot of us were saying this in 2016. I am just about to turn 32 years old and have been voting in federal elections for almost 15 years. For what it's worth.

This is not an ordinary election. This is not a contest between two flawed candidates who respect the system and want to work to enact their policies in the ordinary way. One is a flawed 90s era Democrat who nonetheless has already been pushed CONSIDERABLY left in his policies and platforms since the end of the primaries (and his existing platform would already make him the most left president elected, even more than Obama). The other is a fascist dictator who has openly spoken about refusing to accept the election results, his desire to abolish term limits and serve for life, and complete the pillaging of any remaining fragile American public funds for him and his cult of cronies. He does not respect the system. He does not want to do anything for anyone that is not himself. 160,000 and counting needless deaths of American citizens have already happened. Will keep happening.

This is the last time Trump has to face voters. This is the last chance the country has to repudiate his entire poisonous ideology and its marching Nazi minions. IF he steps aside, which is already far from guaranteed, he can ride off into the sunset as a vindicated two term president and probably be rehabilitated like George W. Bush was within a few years of leaving office. American political memory is very short. It will happen. Again, if he even leaves.

RBG is 87 and has cancer again. She will NOT survive another four years. Stephen Breyer is 81. Their seats could both come up in the next four years. The Supreme Court could be a right wing rubber stamp for whatever time we all have left before climate change and coronavirus kill us all.

"But if people just thought for themselves and did their homework and didn't vote the party line like sheep, we could support a third party/write in -- " Stop. Just stop. Attend a ninth grade civics class and learn about how politics work in America. Yes, the two-party system sucks. Yes, the Electoral College is a hot steaming pile of absolute bullshit. Magical unicorn fairy dust fantasies WILL NOT change that.

Do not vote for Kanye (who has pretty much openly admitted he is trying to play spoiler to Biden on behalf of his buddy Trump). Do not vote for godforsaken fucking Gary Johnson or Jill Stein who appear on ballots just to give sanctimonious leftists the illusion of virtue-signaling. If you want any chance of fixing the mess that 2020 has left America and the world in, you need to vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The end.

Biden is a flawed old man who was our last choice, sure. He is also a distinguished public servant who has already been in the White House for eight years under Obama and thus we KNOW what to expect. He is an empathetic man who connects with people's personal tragedy and picked as his running mate a younger Black/biracial woman who directly confronted and called him out on past behavior. While the pundit class was simpering and whining about how it was Disrespectful and how could he consider her, Biden did so, and that speaks well to me of the fact that he is willing to learn, to take criticism, and not just accept it from a former Black female rival, but make her his second in command and the potential first female president of the United States.

Can you EVER picture Trump doing that? Not in eight thousand million years.

As for Kamala, we are all aware of her previous checkered history as a prosecutor (and even then, she did plenty of good things as well!). Since joining the Senate, however, she has consistently become one of its most progressive members. She is the co-sponsor of an economic aid package designed to give every American $2,000/month, backdated to March (the start of the coronavirus pandemic) and continuing at least a few months after its end. A Biden-Harris White House could make that happen. Especially if they are put into office with a Democratic House and Senate (for the love of God, Kentucky, kill Mitch McConnell with fire). That is just one example.

Harris's nomination is obviously historic. And Biden didn't choose another Biden (or another Tim Kaine, the blandest white man imaginable). He chose another Obama: a younger rising star of an immigrant background, a person of color, a former lawyer and someone who represents the diversity of the country that the white supremacists and the Cheeto in Chief have tried to paint as its worst and most degenerate evil.

A vote for Biden and Harris means getting rid not just of Trump, but Mike Pence, Vladimir Putin, Jared Kushner, Betsy Devos, the Trump crony destroying the Postal Service, the rampant coronavirus misinformation and bullshit, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, the spread of Nazi propaganda from the President's twitter account, the likely two Supreme Court picks that would be as bad as Brett Kavanaugh or worse... on and on. Biden and Harris would be elected by progressive voters and thus answerable to them in 2022 midterms and 2024 general. They can both be, and already have been, pushed further left. They are reasonable and competent adults who have demonstrated experience and compassion. I KNOW about their flaws and past actions I don't agree with. But I'm frankly done with any more counterproductive straw man bitching about This One Bad Thing They Did and how it makes it a terribad awful choice to vote for them. Open your eyes. Look at the alternative. LOOK AT WHAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED AND THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN AS BAD AS IT COULD STILL GET.

Check your registration or register at vote.gov.

DO NOT LOOK AT POLLS AND DECIDE "EH BIDEN IS CLEARLY GOING TO WIN, I DON'T NEED TO VOTE." THAT IS HOW WE LOST LAST TIME.

Unseating incumbents is HARD. It is even harder when the other side has openly laid out their plan to cheat in great detail, and there is nothing really stopping them from doing it. The only thing, in fact, is massive, unfalsifiable results on an undeniable scale.

So:

Vote.

Vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Thanks a lot.

#hilary for ts #politics for ts #rant #long post #i will be reblogging this periodically as election day nears #haters/trolls will be blocked out of hand

658 notes · View notes

docbe · 4 years

Note

I do think it sucks to blame ppl who are like "I don’t like either of this options and I don’t like that the system will only allow two bad options" when like. People who unapologetically support trump are turning out in such great numbers. Like if someone refuses to pick between two sexual predators you can’t call that a morally poor decision

That depends on how you frame a “moral” decision in this situation. The problem here is the perspective that’s painted by stan culture, by cancel culture–that to support someone is to support the things they’ve done in the past, and is also the means to the end in itself. But that’s not what the presidency, or any office of government, is–you’re not supporting a politician, you’re supporting their advocacy of you and the results that can be attained from their representation

I’m not going after Trump supporters right now because like, I imagine anyone who follows me by now realizes that I am not a big fan, and even if they don’t, I imagine most of my followers are themselves liberal bc why would you follow me otherwise haha so just bashing Trump followers would be like…pointless. It would be an echo chamber. It wouldn’t do anything. It would feel good, and we’d all pat ourselves on the back, and there would be nothing to act on and no introspection and no step forward. And I’m not “blaming” people for having trouble with the fact that it might be a shitty decision–I get that! But discussions like this do need to happen within communities of ppl–we aren’t a hive mind, we don’t have to just band together for the sake of making sure everyone feels good. We have to deal with the reality and what could result from our own individual actions

So here’s the situation: on one hand, picking between two accused sexual predators for the highest office in the country obviously sucks. On the other hand, this isn’t an opt-out–either the blue candidate or the red candidate is gonna get it, and we know who the red candidate is. Does that system suck? Absolutely. Is that still the reality? Yes. And I don’t know if you can call it a morally good decision to allow someone into power who committed all of the shitty, evil things we said he was going to do last time, and who would absolutely shift and grab power in whatever way he can, and who has a cult of personality that would follow blindly and allow it to happen. The consequence of a decision is also important in weighing morality, and I think the impact from another Trump presidency on the lives of many people who need healthcare, who aren’t being treated like human beings bc of what they look like or where they come from, far outweighs the personal bad feelings someone might have from being reminded that there is no way to avoid that from happening unless the other candidate wins

Again, no political office in the US is a “congrats for being a good person.” We don’t vote people into office just because we like them. They aren’t celebrities. And while it sucks that someone shitty might get the presidency, the reality is that good guys like Bernie Sanders will still be trying to do work in Congress, and if we have another red president and a stacked house/senate, he won’t be able to do anything. In this situation, a dem president would at least allow the people you want on your side to do the work they need to do; it would allow for a Supreme Court nominee who would protect your hard-fought liberties from being squashed again; it would prevent the sort of bullshit Trump had implemented against poor people, immigrants, lgbtqia+ people, etc.

So like, I’m not saying it’s not a shitty decision, and I’m not faulting people for being morally conflicted about it. But it has consequences, and those consequences may change people’s lives for better or worse, and I think the greater moral decision here is whether or not it is noble to allow someone who would love to build a dictatorship to remain in power just because our heads are too stuck in the way it should be that we can’t react to how it actually is. Passivity is not the right answer here. Even if you hate the choices for president, still show up to the polls, and at least vote for all the other options in your favor to give ppl like Bernie a fighting chance, wherever they are on the ticket

#there are many layers of morality in play here #but like lbr if your decision would be to allow for a would-be dictator to stay in power then I would call it morally poor #if for no other reason go vote to protect others #vote not for a person but for a future #goask #anon #politics #long post #Anonymous

2K notes · View notes

dokidokivisual · 3 years

Text

Gochiusa BLOOM episode 9 impressions

Previously: 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

That’s right, the long-awaited review of episode 9 is finally here! I haven’t managed to finish it last week and kind of lost motivation since almost nobody reads these anyway, but there we go. Not sure what I’m going to do with the remaining episodes at this point, maybe I’ll combine 10 and 11 together?

The episode starts with a flashback from Chiya and Sharo’s childhood which shows the origin of Anko’s crown. The scene is “shot” in widescreen aspect ratio, a technique that I don’t remember being used before in Gochiusa anime, such as during the previous Chiya/Sharo flashback in Season 2 Episode 9.

I’d like to bring the attention to the opening shot of flowers, which are periwinkles (Vinca major). As you might know, Japanese media often uses the flower language, or hanakotoba which assigns specific meanings to various flowers. The meanings of greater periwinkle are “pleasant memories” and “childhood friends”, which seems to apply rather well here. In fact, if you see a shot of flowers in an anime, there’s a very high chance they have a relevant meaning in hanakotoba.

Of course I couldn’t help but look up chamomile as well, and its meaning seems to be “patience in the face of adversity”...

It seems that Chiya has now lost the crown, but it’s honestly surprising how it stayed on Anko all this time considering he has been carried away by crows and dropped from the sky more than once. Also, I feel like revealing the crown is lost so early in the episode deprives the viewers from being able to spot it on their own, just by seeing crownless Anko in various scenes (as has been done in the manga chapter).

In Chiya’s class there’s an election for picking the candidate from the class for the student council president position. The only two people competing are Chiya and the class president (who doesn’t have a name and referred to only as Iincho). In a surprising turn of events, Chiya gets 16 votes versus 14 votes for the prez (refer to the tally mark chart in episode 3 review), which means there are at least 30 people in the class.

Imagine losing a popularity poll to Chiya. The prez is a tragic character...

Cocoa volunteers to be Chiya’s “producer”, but Chiya calls her “First Lady” which totally means she wants to marry her. By the way, it was Cocoa who nominated Chiya for the election, which I don’t think is mentioned in the anime. In general, this particular chapter has been rearranged rather heavily for the adaptation with things happening in a completely different order, so it’s quite interesting to compare the two versions.

For example, when we see Chiya coming up with the names of various student committees, it seems like a completely natural and Chiya thing to do. It’s hard to believe that in the manga, it is Sharo who comes up with the idea of renaming all the committees. In fact this particular Chiya/Sharo tête-à-tête is not in the manga at all. However it’s an important scene to establish Sharo’s feelings towards Chiya’s presidential ambitions and she doesn’t seem too happy about them, in fact she doesn’t even congratulate Chiya.

Next we have another anime-original scene where Chiya goes to accessories store (from episode 6) to find a replacement for Anko’s crown. It should be pointed out that the design of the crown itself is not completely arbitrary. It features a moon crescent, which symbolizes night (the last character 夜 of Chiya’s name) but is also associated with Arabic world. The closest thing to Anko’s crown I could find is this heraldic crown of the King of Egypt. Anyway, this is also a reference to Chiya’s name, namely it being derived from Japanese name for 1001/Arabian Nights 千夜一夜物語 (Sen’ya Ichiya Monogatari).

Meanwhile Rize is trying to change image to be more like a college student, notices Chiya and asks to make her an adult (phrasing?). As a result, we get an appearance from Rize’s alter-ego Rose for the first time since season 1 episode 9.

The interesting thing about Rose is that despite being featured in only a small number of chapters, she gets a mention in Rize’s character blurb in Manga Time Kirara MAX until this day. It literally takes like a third of her character description!

Anyway, this scene is just a prelude for the adaptation of chapter 2 of volume 7 which is named after a Rize character song 鏡合わせのアンビバレット. In the song, Rize tries on outfits in front of a mirror and tries to convince herself that it’s still her. The illustration for this chapter also shows Rose as a mirror image of Rize.

We see Sharo looking through a bookstore window, which I think also appears in the following episode, and this is a foreshadowing that she works here too. The bookstore is named “Dreamy Books” which is seen later in the scene.

Chiya and “Rose” appear and at first Sharo doesn’t recognize Rize, and only does after Rize points a finger gun at her. Well, it’s not like there is anyone else in this town having purple hair or anything.

By the way you might notice that compared to the last episode the characters are dressed much more warmly, which reflects the fact that it’s already December. Looking back at the scene in episode 8 where Rize and Chimame cross the bridge at night, it’s quite shocking how lightly they’ve been dressed there.

Chino and Cocoa come by, and recognize Rize as Rose. It’s lampshaded that the last time they’ve seen Rose was more than a year ago, so it’s quite impressive that they still remember her, as well as her promise to visit Rabbit House (in s1e9 she only visits Ama Usa An). Rize thinks it’s a good chance to “infiltrate” Rabbit House to see what the others think of her when she’s gone.

Rize’s infiltration goes relatively smoothly until Maya and Megu barge in and immediately recognize her. Chiya manages to get them to play along in time, however Megu makes up a ridiculous backstory painting Rose as a ballet kempo practitioner who fights an evil organization.

Aoyama Blue Mountain also backs up Rose’s existence, by mentioning that she is in her literature club and also does food reviews. She gives Rize a cheat sheet which seems to parody the tendency of food reviews to describe food as “melting in your mouth” (for example wagyu beef).

Later Rize ends up having a conversation with Chino where she reveals that Rize’s been taking more days off than usual and it gets lonely without her. She has also started lazing about in the sun, just like Cocoa does, which wouldn’t have happened if Rize has been around upholding the discipline. In the anime Rize doesn’t really react to this, but in the manga she seems a bit disappointed in Chino.

This scene is a callback to the very first episode of the show, where Rize pretends she can’t easily carry these bags of coffee beans, because they’re too heavy for a “normal girl” according to Cocoa. Soon after, Rize’s cover is blown after she reacts to an intruder who is just Takahiro.

It turns out that Cocoa has already recognized it’s Rize. One thing that Cocoa and Rize have in common is that they change hairstyles a lot compared to the other characters, so it makes sense that Cocoa would not be fooled by a simple hairstyle change... or would she? Shortly after Cocoa has a realization that Rose has always been Rize, which makes her feel really stupid... until she finds that Chino is still completely in the dark about everything. Maybe Chino has propagnosia, or inability to recognize faces? Anyway, Rize is quite supportive about it and asks Chino if she’s ok if she does image change in the future.

But there’s still one more twist in this chapter, since Cocoa’s sister Mocha makes an appearance! Considering she appears in the opening, this season hasn’t really done anything with her yet. But it turns out it’s just Cocoa in a wig (why does she even have a Mocha wig???), nevertheless she successfully fools Rize and Chino for a second. Maybe the last episode of the season will have real Mocha (I’m assuming she won’t be in the Christmas arc).

And we’re back to the student council election storyline. The “sandwich” composition where one story “wraps” another seems to be used a lot this season. In this case the stories have almost zero relation to each other so I don’t know why the episode had to be structured like this.

Chiya’s election poster (aside from Cocoa’s scribbles) follows a traditional Japanese election poster design, featuring a closeup photo of a politician, her name and a slogan (which implores you to vote like a shiratama dumpling for some reason). I feel like a poster like this prioritizes the looks of a politician over their policies or whatever, but maybe there’s some sort of election law that these posters have to follow.

Cocoa and Chino also wrote letters of endorsement for Chiya, although Cocoa’s was mostly written by Aoyama and was basically a food review. Chino not only made Chiya almost explode from praise, but also presented a verbal takedown of Cocoa on the fly. Later, Chiya makes a passionate speech trying to emulate Rize, but maybe Chino should’ve written that too.

Next I’d like to point your attention to the name of the dish that Chiya made to celebrate the occasion:

Aki no sora (in the autumn sky) Todoroku oto wa (a thundering sound is) Omedetai (auspicious)

If you count the syllables, you’ll find that it is actually a haiku. and it even includes a kigo (season word, “autumn in this case”). The final line is a pun, as tai indicates the presence of taiyaki (a bean paste filled cake shaped like a bream fish) in the dish.

Another anime-original scene appears to flesh out the episode’s “moral” and show how Ama Usa is where Chiya really shines. A bunch of old ladies (who seem like they starred in a Kirara manga a long time ago) enter the teahouse to celebrate the birth of a 5th grandchild for one of them. Cocoa also helps Chiya, donning the Ama Usa uniform once again.

Chiya sprinkles gold dust on her dish, doing her best “salt bae” expression. Pure gold is inert and as such can be safely eaten. In Japan, gold leaf is even added to tea, which might explain why Chiya has it.

As everyone is about to go home, Chiya’s grandma appears through a rarely-opened sliding window and offers some manju as a treat. In the anime this is how Sharo eventually discovers the lost Chiya’s crown, which her grandma uses as a hairpin (the hairpin functionality explains how this crown doesn’t fall off Anko). Surprisingly she doesn’t appear at all in the manga chapter, and Sharo just randomly finds the crown “outside”.

By the way, the text on the manju box says “congratulations on winning the election”, which might’ve been a bit premature.

Sharo goes to return the crown back to Chiya, and Chiya repeats Cocoa’s reaction from part A, which sounds like breakup song lyrics. This dialogue wasn’t in the manga in either scene and I think it was included to somehow tie the two parts together, and make the inability to notice something obvious that was around you the whole time the unifying concept of the episode.

For Chiya the crown was the symbol of ambition, and her dream to become the director of Ama Usa An and conquer the world. Sharo has a lot of drive to work multiple jobs, but doesn’t seem to have a goal she aspires to. When she finally gets an opportunity to move up the ranks, by becoming a student council president, she declines it. Living side by side with Chiya forever (zutto issho) seems to be the extent of her ambitions. Sharo feels betrayed by Chiya being ready to “leave” her and spend more time with student council than at her own restaurant.

After the ED we see the conclusion of this conflict. Sharo sees the preparations for celebrating the winner of the election, and begrudgingly congratulates Chiya. We see Cocoa, Rize and Chino helping out, but Sharo wasn’t even invited...

But it turns out class prez was the winner, after Chiya has declined the nomination. She probably had all the posters and speeches at the ready just in case, and didn’t have to prepare at all. In the manga, this is also where she returns Sharo’s uniform that she borrowed back in episode 4.

Meanwhile Chiya and Sharo have a talk and agree that it was the best for them to decline their nominations and they should stick with what they have. Not sure if that applies to Sharo though, she wasn’t really shown to be “shining” but more like “barely getting by”. There was also another reason in the manga for Chiya to agree it was the right choice: Chiya’s classmates totally trashed her menu names, which means they probably wouldn’t like her committee names either. Most of the classmates dialogue was cut out in the anime though.

So that was episode 9 and all that’s left for this season is a 2-episode Christmas arc and the season finale. Hope you enjoyed this review and until next time!

#gochiusa #gochuumon wa usagi desu ka?#is the order a rabbit?#review

12 notes · View notes

rainwolfheart · 4 years

Text

in case you need any more: reasons to vote for joe biden, from a non-american

the american political system is corrupt and nonsensical from an outside perspective, too. but any chance at improving it has to come from the left, and the only way to push the pendulum that way for the short-term is by electing democrats. sorry.

it's been said many times, but you're not just voting for the president. you're voting for the vice president, for the cabinet, for the supreme court, and (i may be wrong on this one) for people who represent your state/region (senators? congresspeople? both?)

i know you're maybe sad about the democrats not choosing bernie or warren or whoever. but if you want them to continue having an influence on politics, biden is the one who might give them a cabinet position or make them in charge of a committee, etc, and will actually listen to the advice of experts and the people around him. do you think trump will extend that olive branch?

even if biden is all talk and no action, a democratic government will at least prevent the republicans from doing more bad shit and break the spirit of the right and stop everyone from having to see and listen to the current cheeto in chief

whether you realize it or not, american politics have a huge impact on the rest of the world. in the last four years there's been a massive shift in the canadian right, directly influenced by trump. defeating trump and the republicans with even a slightly more left-wing candidate will be a massive blow to the far right in the usa and elsewhere, and may cause schisms and more turnover that makes it more difficult to elect them in the future.

let me say it more clearly: because of trump's election in 2016, canada almost ended up with a right-wing government, too. my province has one right now and it's awful. the results of the 2020 election WILL impact politics in other countries. this isn't just about you.

i know it's hard and it can be painful to bring yourself to vote for someone you think is a terrible human being. nobody is asking you to be a fan of him. they're just asking you to choose the lesser of two evils. there is no third path in this scenario. start the revolution after election day.

you guys get stickers for voting and we don't and that's not fair. get a sticker for me.

23 notes · View notes

gallagherwitt · 4 years

Text

Why I'm voting for Biden and hope you will too...

Let me preface this by saying that I totally understand the reasons people don't want to vote for Biden. I'm not thrilled with him as a candidate either. Of all the options we had, he was my least favorite by a mile. (And yes, I support investigating allegations of sexual assault no matter what.) You don't need to explain to me why you're not voting for him -- I get it.

I also understand why people are frustrated by centrism over progressivism. How frustrated people are that we're getting more of the same when we desperately need and want change. I loathe picking the lesser of two evils in every election. You don't need to explain that to me either.

I get it. I do. I'm tired of it. I'm exhausted by it. I don't like being pushed to vote for a candidate I don't want. Never have, never will. I want to actually be excited about a candidate and optimistic that things will change when they're in office.

But I will vote for Biden because the stakes are extraordinarily high this time.

To put it succinctly, electing Biden won't bring the changes I want, but allowing Trump to get reelected will mean four years of allowing things to get so much worse, the changes I want will be vastly overshadowed by even greater problems.

The damage Trump has, in one not-yet-complete term, done to our country, to our government, to our standing in the world, to our environment, to our economy -- all of that will already take generations to undo. We can't handle four more years, especially without Trump concerning himself with being reelected. We definitely can't weather another crisis like coronavirus under his "leadership."

I want universal healthcare. Trump's administration is aggressively working to undermine the ACA and give insurance companies more power to cover fewer people.

I want a robust and well-funded public education system. DeVos is destroying what we already have, piece by piece.

I want us to move toward green energy and reduced carbon emissions. Trump is actively repealing our existing environmental regulations.

Will Biden improve healthcare, education, or environmental protections? Doubtful. But right now, our choice is between someone who will maintain the abysmal status quo and someone who will aggressively and unapologetically make things objectively - and maybe irreversibly - worse. Trump has demonstrated time and again that the only thing he can consistently be relied upon to do is the wrong thing.

So no, I'm not excited about Biden. I don't like Biden. When this is all over, I am 100% onboard with burning the Democratic party to the ground and rebuilding something progressive.

But right now, regardless of my feelings on the issue, there will be two nominees on the ballot: Biden and Trump.

Everyone keeps saying this will be a repeat of previous elections where a "meh" centrist lost, but the stakes weren't nearly as high in those elections. People weren't nearly as aware of and involved in politics because things weren't such an unmitigated disaster. The opponents weren't nearly as unapologetic in their willingness to destroy our country's institutions, pick fights with other nations, etc. They at least TRIED to sound like they cared about doing right by this country.

"Biden will lose! There's no way he can win!" That, my friends, is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy. Biden can win IF WE VOTE FOR HIM.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to be even a little bit happy about it. You don't have to believe in a two-party system, in primaries, in anything that went into selecting the nominee. I agree with you!

But the fact is, at the end of the day, we have two options.

We can elect an adult who has a fighting chance of being reasonable, accepting oversight, engaging in negotiations, demonstrating a shred of empathy, and at the very least behaving like an adult.

Or we can have 4 more years of disaster at the hands of Trump, and I've studied history for too long to believe our country will be recognizable after that, assuming it survives at all. Trump has all the hallmarks of someone who wants to be a dictator, and he's eroding the checks and balances fast enough that he might get what he wants.

That is why I will, despite not being happy about it, vote for Biden, and I hope you will too.

#biden #joe biden #election 2020 #Trump

24 notes · View notes

alexsmitposts · 4 years

Photo

Blind Faith, Subterfuge and not “Real Issues” will decide US Presidential Elections Voter behaviour is not really so complicated. I once even took a course in it; about all that I can remember is that the “incumbent and name recognition is all that really matters” in getting re-elected, especially for a US President. Regardless of who is the pick for vice president, or whether or not Joe Biden is a Republican at heart with a bad case of both venality and dementia and Trump cannot make truthful statements, the November election is therefore kind of a “toss up”—at least at first impression. Trump is larger than life, whether or not that is a good thing. This worked in his favour last time round, as the outsider candidate against the tainted Hillary Clinton, pillar of the political establishment, the sort who gives representing a relatively left-leaning party a bad name. But this time the US is not electing a new president, it is holding what is effectively a referendum on the incumbent. In 2016 the primary motivation was voting either FOR Trump or FOR Hillary. This time a significant portion of the population will be voting AGAINST Trump, just because it’s him, and his main task will be get these people to stay at home, rather than vote for Biden, even if they have to hold their noses to do so. But with so many Republicans having a problem with Trump, and Democrats having a problem with Sloppy Joe Biden, there will be less interest in engaging WITH, rather than AGAINST, either candidate. If voters act on hate alone, Biden will walk it. But the long campaigning season will probably end with a weary populace ignoring the real issues and voting on the basis of blind faith – that regardless of things like issues and facts, someone, somehow, is going to make their lives better before the whole political system collapses around them. Schoolyard Bully I am dumbfounded at how Trump can blatantly and unapologetically pander to Christians and they eat it up!!! He is reported to have made a statement that if the states don’t open the churches this weekend there will be consequences!!! Trump has many supporters in the South, where they are keen on States´Rights. But Facebook and other social media sites are repeating his nonsense, and throwing their endorsement to Trump. Maybe the man is the genius he says he is after all. He is definitely playing them – what can Facebook do, censor Trump or claim that such statements go against community standards? He has been a genius at one thing for his entire life – getting his own way, and just for the hell of it, regardless of what is right or well-advised. Like the rich kid who learns how to twist his parents in knots, Trump is godlike in his ability to manipulate. He will use any trick in the book, and make up some new ones. This may end up being what the election is actually about. The more Trump lies and cheats and gets away with it, the more the disadvantaged and the crooked, who have fallen by the wayside when playing by the rules, will think he offers hope. The rest of America will then decide whether that is really the world they want to live in for the next four years, in the midst of a succession of crises they often have wilfully unreal ideas about to begin with. As one new American, before the new immigration rules set in, shared, “Trump is not that evil; I don’t think he is Godlike. He is just a compulsive dude with a character. He is simple but knows how to bargain for profits. Why everyone is after him, it’s funny; I have never seen Americans liking their president ever, as they like Trump.” Us against them Versus them against Us Of course this means Trump won’t campaign by the rules either. Other people made those rules, the same people many Americans blame for taking away their jobs and being soft on their enemies. Trump will do whatever he has to do, whatever the cost, ignoring little things like the Constitution, Rule of Law and facts.His latest stunt is to question whether Biden’s VP running mate is qualified to stand for the office, based on her parent’s origins. That is really catering to his base, as he knows only too well that she is in no way disqualified for the office, but many people wish she was. Barack Obama was subject to so much rumour about his own origins that he actually displayed his birth certificate (saying Honolulu, Hawaii, 4th August 1961, i.e. after it had become part of the US) at a press conference. These allegations were never based on fact, but allowed some voters to dress up prejudice as hoped-for fact. Trump joined these allegations, saw they worked, and has been finding new ways to make prejudice seem justified ever since. Constitutional law experts say Harris’ parents are beside the point. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all people born in the US, and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution says that to be eligible for the vice presidency and presidency a candidate must be natural-born US citizen, at least 35, and a resident of the United States for a minimum of 14 years. But the Constitution embodies the establishment, and Trump doesn’t consider himself part of it. Many of his supporters feel betrayed by it, their needs and values having been relegated to secondary status, or worse, because they and their friends were never asked to write the Constitution. Trump has lied to his base like he has lied to everyone else. He does it every day, shamelessly. Remember building a wall and making Mexico pay for it, incarcerating Hillary, paying off the debt and stopping wars, let alone the more recent ones about COVID-19 response. But what is escaping critical attention is that the current man in the White House represents the character and morals of the masses of people who make up the country. They won’t admit openly to being everything America pretends it isn’t, which is why Trump is being hammered in the polls, but they will be voting in mass for his re-election. Their core values are the same: family, Church, flag and job security, as if these are the answer to everything in themselves, no actual performance or policy is needed. The vast majority of these voters must feel that they are now being taken care of—for most that means less government, affordable education and healthcare. If Trump makes an about-turn, such as introducing Medicare for all at a price, he will be hoeing in high cotton as the presidential election nears. Blind faith in the system versus blind faith in anything other than the system may not be the best choice to have, as countries which have had revolutions understand. But both sides are gambling that this is how the voters will see it, and that they will choose their faith over the other, and then prosecute it for four years with the same religious fervour so that reality doesn’t come and bite too hard. Bubbling under the Radar Trump may support a small state, but he did a clever move extending Federal Unemployment benefits by executive order, albeit not to the previous level of 600 dollars per week on top of any State benefit. He realised that he had no time to waste, especially in the wake of the economic havoc of COVID-19. Congress went on recess so as not to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, as they knew there was going to be too much pork included in any legislation they would attempt to pass. This could be interpreted as meaning they were outsmarted by Donald Trump, and only one such victory will embolden his supporters to believe there will be many more, which they will interpret as victories for them. Trump’s base of support has closed ranks even more over his monument policy, which makes it a crime to tear down historic monuments. One cannot trash history just because times have changed. I may not like your monument, but let’s talk about it. When the first Democratic debates were held Joe Biden was not most people’s first choice, but I wondered if he had the best chance, since he was old and white and had been VP under Obama. This claim to fame would help him gain the black vote en masse, or so he thought. But this has become a moot issue since Biden scolded black leaders, claiming they would not be black if they voted for Trump. That did not go over well with a voter group which as a whole finds Trump a lowlife, but does not expect to be lectured by a senile “old honky”.Blacks also realised long ago that if they have an equally strong voice within both parties they are more likely to be heard, not taken for granted by the one they support and then ignored, because electorally not worth the effort, by the other. If Biden doesn’t get that, how many other voter groups will he risk alienating between now and November? Biden is the sort of Democrat blacks once deserted his party for being full of – a scion of white privilege, darling of War on Crime (meaning war on blacks, as is Harris), closet racist and blind servant of Wall Street and the Military-Industrial Complex. Maybe this is the real reason he is supposedly polling ahead of Trump in key Electoral College States, even Ohio. However, those with not-so-short memories will remember that the last round of polls before the 2016 election gave Hillary Clinton a commanding lead, and the DNC and mainstream media were so confident of her success they had already printed up the front pages of the newspapers announcing her victory. What makes the pollsters so confident that they will not be even more wrong this time? Trump bashing Biden’s policies and the Democratic National Committee’s platform may soon take all the wind out of Biden’s sails, precisely because it is so easy to bash Trump that it has less effect on the voters. Trump’s policy of America First is also proving consistent, and this is the one campaign promise few people expected him to keep. This does put Trump in the small category of politicians who actually keep their promises, however ironic that is. The return of no point As for the election, only God knows what will happen.It is perfectly possible that the Deep State controls the voting machines by now and the mail-in ballots too!Democrats in Florida are still protesting about the voting machines used there when George W. Bush beat Al Gore by a tiny margin. As James Baker pointed out at the time, they tested the machines before the election and had no complaints. So either there was nothing wrong with the machines, or the count was distorted by those machines. I know which one my money is on. What people are not willing to wake up and accept is that America needs another system, not the two party system, aswhich now supposedly exists. It is an illusion that Republican and Democrat are the only choices, when members of these two parties stay in Congress for decades and little if anything changes. In 1905 Mark Twain wrote his War Prayer, a short story or prose poem described as “a scathing indictment of war, particularly of blind patriotic and religious fervour as motivations for war.” In the days of the Vietnam War, when both war and politics had meaning, this was seen as sarcasm. Now it is a commentary on what the US political system has become, because people are incapable of engaging with real issues because they do not wish to know the truth about their country.

1 note · View note

relationshipsandpolitics · 4 years

Text

An easy way to know whether your preferred media outlet is absolute shit or not is their handling of this whole Soleimani assassination story. When the Trump administration announced the assassination was because there was an imminent threat against the United States, if your preferred media outlet didn’t immediately come out with a headline that read: “Trump says attack imminent, 99% chance that’s bullshit.,” then they are a shit media outlet.

It’s laughable to watch and read how the news has covered this “crisis.” As though there was any chance Trump was telling the truth at any point between deciding to kill Soleimani and now. Yet the media constantly either takes him at his word or frames the narrative as “likely true, but could have been handled better. It’s only weeks later when you start reading more stories about how the whole thing was bullshit. Trump at this moment is claiming there were four embassies being targeted, which not even his own Defense Secretary seems aware of. And yet the media argues this doesn’t show that Trump lied, just that he is *gasp* not communicating! No, he lied.

There was never an imminent threat. Trump just needed a “wag the Dog” situation to distract from impeachment. This shit isn’t hard. After the calamity that was the media handling of the Iraq War run up, you’d thin the media would learn. But alas, they love war and never do their job in reporting about it. So they buy the lie, or at least make sure to heavily couch any skepticism. Perhaps the facts are not entirely accurate, but we all agree Soleimani was a bad guy who deserved to die, right America?

The media can’t bring themselves to call Trump a liar, to presume anything out of his mouth is a lie, despite the millions of times he lies straight to our faces. I don’t understand how a reporter has not yet asked Mike Pompeo why we should trust anything coming out of his mouth given the fact his boss lies constantly. The media merely parrots the lies, providing a megaphone for this misinformation the administration deliberately spreads. Because the media loves war. They love the ratings it brings. They love the shots of soldiers tearfully kissing their kids goodbye to fly on a Delta flight to a country that never did anything to them. The love talking about how evil a guy Soleimani was for killing troops, conveniently omitting the fact that we’re the ones who sent them to invade Arab lands in the first place.

By the way, of course Soleimani is evil. He’s a powerful man.You don’t achieve power without being at least a little evil. He’s just a larger evil, whereas someone like Samuel L. Jackson is just a little evil for shilling for a bank.

This whole situation is why I have so little faith in the media covering the election fairly. I guarantee at some point soon they start going all in once again on how expensive Medicare for All will be, while never once questioning Trump on how he is going to pay for his Space Force and $2 trillion in military spending. The media is going to fuck everything up, just like they currently are fucking up their coverage of Trump. Because as much as they say they hate him and what he stands for, the media’s interest will always align more closely with war and profit than peace and economic justice.

So it once again falls to us, the voting public, to be the moral voice in this country. We need to finally decide if we will vote for death through bombs and tax cuts, or actual peace and justice. Which candidate do you truly believe will end the endless war machine? Which candidate will actually take away power from corporations? Don’t vote for who you think will win. Vote for the candidate who lives your values.

#Trump #soleimani #media

5 notes · View notes

phroyd · 5 years

Link

In what follows, I will be assuming that you are a person who wants to see Bernie Sanders elected President of the United States. If this is not something you want, this discussion will be of little value.

The task itself is clear and has two parts: At the Democratic convention in July of 2020, Bernie Sanders needs to be the nominated as the party’s candidate for president. Then, on November 3, 2020, Bernie Sanders needs to receive 270 electoral votes.

Personally, I think Part II will be easier than Part I, because in Part II Bernie Sanders has the luxury of running against a cartoon of an evil billionaire. This will “play to his strengths.” I think watching a debate between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump will be an immensely satisfying experience, and that the people of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin will be moved by Bernie’s comprehensive agenda for dealing with their day-to-day problems. I believe they will reject Donald Trump, because Donald Trump offers nothing but bigotry and bluster, and no one really likes or trusts him the way they like and trust Bernie.

How, then, do we make sure that he gets the Democratic nomination, and how do we do it without him having to destroy his body in the process by working himself to death?

First, let’s recognize: If you support Bernie, and really want to overthrow Trump, you have a job to do. The next year is going to be a busy one, and the next few months will be the busiest of all. Your job is to get as many people as possible to vote for Bernie Sanders, because the more you do on that front, the less of his finite energy he has to spend shouting himself hoarse at rallies in a cornfield outside Des Moines in the middle of January. Bernie should not need to be personally lobbying every voter in Iowa, because that’s what his supporters are for. That’s what you and I are for.

To understand the nature of the job ahead, it is helpful to keep in mind the distinction between mobilizing and organizing (see this interview with Jane McAlevey for more). Mobilizing is when you turn out those who already believe in a cause (all the antiwar people go to a protest). Organizing is when you go out and build the cause, converting people who did not already believe in it. So, what labor organizers do is: They find all the people at the workplace who do not believe in the union, or who are even vehemently against it, and they do the very slow and difficult work of bringing them on board, through long, empathetic conversations and by building relationships.

Think, then, of the entire universe of people you know who will be (or could be) eligible to vote in the 2020 Democratic primary. How many of them are you certain will vote for Bernie Sanders? The job ahead is to shift as many people from the “Don’t know” or “No” column on your sheet to the “Yes” column. (You can even make an actual list of this universe of people. And it should be the entire universe—coworkers, friends, second cousins, a person you met at a car show once but haven’t spoken to in four years.)

Now, what lies ahead involves both mobilizing and organizing. For the people who are already Bernie Sanders supporters, the job is to: (1) Make sure they are registered to vote and satisfy the eligibility requirements and (2) Make sure they actually do vote. Every time you successfully convince someone to support Bernie Sanders, you then have to switch from persuasion/organizing to activation/mobilizing. Supporting him in their brain means nothing without action. They might as well not support him at all. You’ve wasted your time unless they register to vote and actually do vote.

The success of Bernie Sanders is going to require a “nonvoter revolution.” His appeal is, in large part, not to party loyalists, but to the 70+ percent of people who did not vote in the primaries last time (and the nearly 40 percent of people who did not vote in the general election). These are the types of disillusioned voters my colleague Malaika Jabali has written about so well in “The Color of Economic Anxiety,” people who quite rightly and rationally do not see much point in voting and feel betrayed by politicians who make grand promises and deliver nothing.

Part of your job, then, is to convince jaded nonvoters that Bernie’s candidacy is worth believing in, and then getting them to actually cast a ballot. For nonvoters, this is especially urgent, because many states disenfranchise people by setting absurdly early registration deadlines for voting in primaries. If someone is unregistered, or registered as a Republican, you need to get them signed up now.

Here it’s important to discuss what it means to “get” someone to vote for Bernie Sanders. It does not mean being an obnoxious evangelist who never shuts up about Bernie. In fact, one of the most important aspects of the Sanders campaign is that it isn’t about Bernie, it’s about ordinary people and their problems. A main part of persuasion is going to involve being an empathetic listener rather than a preacher. This is supposed to be the campaign that listens, the one that actually cares what people think. Notice that the most effective Bernie ads barely feature Bernie at all: They feature people talking about their struggles, the kind of people Bernie’s presidency is going to help.

Long, difficult conversations. That’s what will be involved a lot of the time. You have to try to show another person why you feel so strongly that a Sanders presidency is important, and to have them come to share your perspective, but doing so will involve making sure you understand theirs as well. I think it is very important here not to be an uncritical adulator of Bernie Sanders. Frankly, there are votes he has made that I think are indefensible, and I find him frequently frustrating and in constant need of pressure from activists. I believe in his candidacy because I think he is the only person with anything close to a set of solutions to the problems people face today.

Know the issues, know the plans, try to figure out how to articulate why you feel so strongly the way you do. Those people in the video: Why is it that they trust Bernie so much? What is it that they see in him and in his campaign? What is it that Erica Garner saw in Bernie? (She, too, gave herself a heart attack as she fought tirelessly for justice.) What was it that felt so beautiful about the “America” ad? I think it had something to do with the uncommon and genuine respect that Bernie Sanders has for ordinary working people and the bitter contempt he has for those who dare to speak in the name of those people while betraying their interests.

Nobody should be written off immediately. It frequently turns out that the people who seem most resistant to persuasion, if you find the right “in road,” will eventually become some of the strongest supporters, if you give them a good reason. Political conversions happen every day, even of the most extreme kinds. (Take, for instance, that young white supremacist who slowly unlearned his hatred after spending time around anti-racists in college.) Of course, you need to prioritize your limited time. There are three categories of people:

People who like Bernie already and support him. — They need to be convinced to actually vote, and you need to make sure they are eligible. Then they, too, need to start working on doing exactly what you’re doing. Convince them to get active and to get others active. (It’s not a pyramid scheme, but it does take the shape of a pyramid, hah.)

People who are indifferent or don’t care about politics. — Why don’t they care about politics? What do they feel it’s not offering them? What would they want out of a president? You will do a lot more listening than talking, at least at first. (In fact, you may want to keep in mind Noam Chomsky’s point that you should be cautious about the entire idea of “persuading” people, because what you really want is for them to figure things out for themselves.)

People who dislike or despise Bernie. — Former Clinton people. Republicans. Etc. These will be far tougher conversations. But you can have them. Try very hard not to get upset. Be patient. Present your perspective rather than arguing. I think there is some truth to the fact that many Sanders supporters have been too hostile online. We need to see every person as a potential Sanders voter, and as such be careful not to needlessly antagonize them. Look at the case of Peter Daou. A die-hard Hillary supporter in 2016, one of Bernie’s fiercest critics, he has now come around. If this can happen to Peter Daou, then we do not know who else it could happen to. So don’t make fun of people and get them defensive and hostile. Set an example. Listen the way Bernie Sanders does when confronted by people who disagree. Bernie has made a commitment to listening to Trump voters and trying patiently to bring them around to a democratic socialist perspective. He goes on FOX and Joe Rogan, and he does well. (Look at the comments section on the Rogan video, people who disliked him come to see him as reasonable and honest.) Think strategically about everything: Is the way I am talking to this person increasing or decreasing the chance they will vote for Bernie Sanders? That is the question for the next few months. Bernie’s army of supporters must be disciplined and effective. No needless flame wars, no pointless hostility. We have a positive vision and we need others to share in it.

What I have been talking about so far is stuff you can do even if you can’t afford to donate $27, or can’t go knocking on doors or putting in signs or do phone banking. It is something you can do in day to day interactions with people around you. But of course, if you do have time and money, there is more. Get your ass off Twitter and get on a bus to Iowa or South Carolina. Sign up to volunteer wherever you are already. Put in a regular monthly donation. Get that sticker onto your car and that shirt onto your torso. The clock is ticking. There are novel ways that people can pitch in—that incredible ad contrasting media perspectives with “real America’s” perspectives? It was made by a fan, not the campaign. That fan made a choice: to use his time and skills and creativity to make something inspiring and effective.

There is another important thing you can do for Bernie Sanders: Work for candidates who are not Bernie Sanders. Remember: This movement is not about Bernie. It is about advancing a strong set of social democratic policies that will make this country and the world a better place. That cannot be done without having many more lefties in Congress and it state and municipal governments. There are all kinds of incredible candidates running at every level. Check out these lists for people in your area. I’ve recently met great candidates like Marguerite Green, a DSA member running for Agriculture Commissioner in Louisiana, and Rebecca Parson, running for Congress in Washington, who deserve your support. If Shahid Buttar can win in San Francisco, it will totally transform Democratic politics. These candidates will never be able to build the kind of giant grassroots fundraising apparatus that Bernie has, so you should not donate to Bernie without donating to candidates like these as well. These campaigns need you. They are very difficult uphill battles, working with very few resources. Your participation makes a giant difference. But they can win, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed us when she defeated a 10-term high-ranking incumbent who had millions more dollars. At the DSA convention, I met socialist candidates who had won all over the country, even in very hostile districts. It is possible.

Of course, if you have the time and energy yourself, you might consider running yourself. Even a seat on the local library board or school board can help. The left ideally needs a presence in every race, red states as well as blue. This is not the “Bernie Sanders campaign.” It is a rising movement of the American left that, with thought and effort, can create a genuine “political revolution.” A Bernie Sanders presidency is an important part of that, but it’s only the very beginning. The next year could reshape American politics completely, or it could end in the demoralizing reelection of Donald Trump. Which path it takes depends on what we choose to do right now.

Phroyd

#bernie sanders #election2020

14 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Why Are The Republicans So Evil

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-are-the-republicans-so-evil/

Why Are The Republicans So Evil

In 2008 Republicans Said That If We Elect A Democratic President We Would Be Hit By Al Qaeda Again Perhaps Worse Than The Attack On 9/11

A VOTERS’ GUIDE TO REPUBLICANS

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney stated that electing a Democrat as president would all but guarantee that there would be another major attack on America by Al Qaeda. Cheney and other Republicans were, thankfully, completely wrong. During Obama’s presidency, we had zero deaths on U.S. soil from Al Qaeda attacks and we succeeded in killing Bin Laden along with dozens of other high ranking Al Qaeda leaders.

Republicans Will Likely Take Control Of The Senate By 2024

The usual midterm House losses by the White House party dont always extend to the Senate because only a third of that chamber is up for election every two years and the landscape sometimes strongly favors the presidential party . But there a still generally an out-party wave that can matter, which is why Republicans may have a better than average chance of winning in at least some of the many battleground states that will hold Senate elections next year . If they win four of the six youll probably be looking at a Republican Senate.

But its the 2024 Senate landscape that looks really promising for the GOP. Democrats will be defending 23 seats and Republicans just 10. Three Democratic seats, and all the Republican seats, are in states Trump carried twice. Four other Democratic seats are in states Trump won once. It should be a banner year for Senate Republicans.

The Corruption Of The Republican Party

The GOP is best understood as an insurgency that carried the seeds of its own corruption from the start.

About the author: George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal,Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century,The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, and The Assassins Gate: America in Iraq.

Why has the Republican Party become so thoroughly corrupt? The reason is historicalit goes back many decadesand, in a way, philosophical. The party is best understood as an insurgency that carried the seeds of its own corruption from the start.

I dont mean the kind of corruption that regularly sends lowlifes like Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic former governor of Illinois, to prison. Those abuses are nonpartisan and always with us. So is vote theft of the kind weve just seen in North Carolinaafter all, the alleged fraudster employed by the Republican candidate for Congress hired himself out to Democrats in 2010.

The fact that no plausible election outcome can check the abuse of power is what makes political corruption so dangerous. It strikes at the heart of democracy. It destroys the compact between the people and the government. In rendering voters voiceless, it pushes everyone closer to the use of undemocratic means.

Read Also: How Many Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump In The House

Opinion: If The Gop Is Now Home To Evil Lunacy Its Time To Leave

The Republican Party refuses to investigate the most violent act of insurrection since the Civil War because it might make the party look bad.

Think about that. It would look bad because it would be obvious that their cult hero incited a MAGA mob and because House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , who pleaded with the president to call off the rioters at the Capitolon Jan. 6, would be compelled to testify. He might then have to explain why he still takes direction from someone who betrayed his oath.

A commission would look bad for the GOP because it would short-circuit the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, confirming that this effort at subterfuge was intended to assuage the ego of a dangerous man-child. The optics, as they say, would be bad because the GOPs continued refusal to renounce its disgraced former leader would affirm its willingness to open the country up to another violent insurrection. It would also look really bad if some members of Congress were shown to havecommunicated with the Jan. 6attackers. We get hung up on Republicans refusal to endorse the commission, but we should remain focused on their original sin: subversion of democracy.

With or without the commission, the Republican Party is a danger to the republic. And that gets back to the central question as to why any respectable patriot remains in the party. The GOP of Ronald Reagan, of John McCain, of Mitch Daniels does not exist. But dont take my word for it.

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it with startling results

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today? Democrats guessed 50%. Its actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe most police are bad people. Republicans estimated half; its really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the studys findings: the wilder a persons guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

This effect, the report says, is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

Should the US participate in the Paris climate accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do? A majority of voters in both parties said yes.

You May Like: How Should Republicans Vote In California

Prior To Going To War In Iraq Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Optimistically Predicted The Iraq War Might Last Six Days Six Weeks I Doubt Six Months

What’s more, Vice-President Dick Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people after we overthrow Saddam.

They were both horribly wrong. Instead of six weeks or six months, the Iraq war lasted eight long and bloody years costing thousands of American lives. It led to an Iraqi civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites that took hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Many Iraqi militia groups were formed to fight against the U.S. forces that occupied Iraq. Whats more, Al Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq before the war, used the turmoil in Iraq to establish a new foothold in that country.

The Iraq war was arguably the most tragic foreign policy blunder in US history.

Why Is Billionaire George Soros A Bogeyman For The Hard Right

US mail bomb threats

He’s a Jewish multi-billionaire philanthropist who has given away $32bn. Why does the hard right from America to Australia and from Hungary to Honduras believe George Soros is at the heart of a global conspiracy, asks the BBC’s Mike Rudin.

One quiet Monday afternoon last October in leafy upstate New York, a large manila envelope was placed in the mailbox of an exclusive country mansion belonging to multi-billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

The package looked suspicious. The return address was misspelt as “FLORIDS” and the mail had already been delivered earlier that day. The police were called and soon the FBI was on the scene.

Inside the bubble-wrapped envelope was a photograph of Soros, marked with a red “X”. Alongside it, a six-inch plastic pipe, a small clock, a battery, wiring and a black powder.

More than a dozen similar packages were sent to the homes of former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats.

None of the devices exploded. The FBI traced the bombs to a white van covered in pro-Trump and anti-Democrat stickers, parked in a supermarket car park in Florida.

Immediately the right-wing media claimed it was a “false-flag” operation intended to derail President Donald Trump and the Republican campaign, just two weeks before the crucial US mid-term elections.

Soon the internet was awash with allegations that the bomb plot was a hoax organised by Soros himself.

Also Check: Why Are Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare

The Banality Of Evil And The Evanescence Of Democratic Governance

On May 28, Republican U.S. Senators chose to prevent the creation of an independent commission to investigate the insurrection that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They did so after Democratic Party leaders had acceded to their many demands concerning the composition and remit of the body and despite the fact that many who voted to oppose the commission, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, had previously embraced the need for just such a group and investigation. More, they quite openly justified their vote by contending that the findings of such a body might prove difficult for the GOP politically as it seeks to win control of the Congress in 2022.

;;;;;;;;In a commentary entitled the Banality of Democratic Collapse, published before the Republican Party took this historically significant anti-democratic step, the likelihood of which was then all but certain in any case, New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman contended:; ; ; ; ;;

;;;;;;;;The GOP Senate vote to prevent creation of the commission is surely an example;of the phenomenon to which Krugman pointed. He went on to argue that this action and the weakness and cowardice of far too many craven careerist Republican officeholders is why American democracy is hanging by a thread. Cowardice, not craziness, is the reason government by the people may soon perish from the earth.

;;;;;;;;Elon observed that Arendt insisted,

Notes

Krugman. The Banality of Democratic Collapse.

Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid Of Democracy

Comedian: Being Taught That Republicans Are Evil (Pt. 2) | Bridget Phetasy | COMEDY | Rubin Report

In a series of tweets, Senator Mike Lee laid the groundwork to contest the results or block an elected majority from governing.

Were not a democracy, Republican Senator Mike Lee tweeted in the middle of Wednesday nights vice-presidential debate. He was reacting to something hed heard onstage there, in his home state of Utah. Another tweet: The word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. Its a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. Hours after the debate Lee was still worrying the thought: Democracy isnt the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.

My guess is that Lee wasnt just being pedantic. Worried about an election in which the people can express their will, Lee was laying the groundwork to contest the results or block an elected majority from governing.

Also Check: Did Republicans Lose Any Senate Seats

Republicans Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy

There is far more evidence to the contrary. Cities and states that have higher minimum wages tend to have better rates of job creation and economic growth.

Detailed analyses show that job losses due to increases in the minimum wage are almost negligible compared to the economic benefits of higher wages. Previous increases in the minimum wage have never resulted in the dire consequences that Republicans have predicted.

Republicans have accused President Obama of “cutting defense spending to the bone”. This chart of 2014 discretionary spending firmly disproves that argument.

In 2001 When George W Bush Cut Taxes For The Wealthy Republicans Predicted Record Job Growth Increased Budget Surplus And Nationwide Prosperity

Once again, the exact opposite occurred. After the Bush tax cuts were enacted:

The budget surplus immediately disappeared.

The budget deficit eventually grew to $1.4 trillion by the time Bush left office.

Less than 3 million net jobs were added during Bushs eight years.

The poverty rate began climbing again.

We experienced two recessions along with the greatest collapse of our financial system since the Great Depression.

In 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady Law mandating nationwide background checks and a waiting period to buy a gun.

Recommended Reading: What Did The Democratic Republicans Stand For

In The 1960s Republicans Claimed That The Passage Of Medicare Would Be The End Of Capitalism

California Governor Ronald Reagan even proclaimed Medicare would lead to the death of freedom in America. Of course, they were laughably wrong. Since the passage of Medicare, capitalism has thrived and millions of elderly Americans have had longer, healthier lives and greater personal freedom. Medicare remains the most popular form of health insurance in the United States.

When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.5%, Republicans predicted a recession, increased unemployment, and a growing budget deficit. They were wrong.

The 2024 Presidential Election Will Be Close Even If Trump Is The Gop Nominee

One very important thing we should have all taken away from both the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests is that the two major parties are in virtual equipose . The ideological sorting-out of the two parties since the 1960s has in turn led to extreme partisan polarization, a decline in ticket-splitting and and in number of genuine swing voters. Among other things, this has led to an atmosphere where Republicans have paid little or no price for the extremism theyve disproportionately exhibited, or for the bad conduct of their leaders, most notably the 45th president.

Indeed, the polarized climate encourages outlandish and immoral base mobilization efforts of the sort Trump deployed so regularly. Some Republicans partisans shook their heads sadly and voted the straight GOP ticket anyway, And to the extent there were swing voters they tended strongly to believe that both parties were equally guilty of excessive partisanship, and/or that all politicians are worthless scum, so why not vote for the worthless scum under whom the economy hummed?

The bottom line is that anyone who assumes Republicans are in irreversible decline in presidential elections really hasnt been paying attention.

You May Like: How Many House Seats Were Won By Republicans

But What About Conservatives

I could say some very similar/but different things about conservatives. But a lot of that brings us back to the start and perceptions.

Liberals think that the only way to solve things is with government/taxes/regulations to try to fight injustice… thus not doing so, must be because they just don’t care. Which is where the left’s view of the right as being greedy and morally inferior comes from.

But not choosing the same solutions, isn’t the same as not caring. Some just know they can help more by NOT getting involved and letting them learn/work it out on their own. Or that short term economic benefits with long term economic costs aren’t always a good trade .

That doesn’t mean Republicans are never wrong, or don’t go too far. And of course Government CAN help with some problems, in the short term. Just long term, many of those solutions will make things worse . But either extreme: Always Government or Never Government – can be equally wrong. But the point is perceptions. Once you assume the other side is evil , they’re going to get back to assuming your stupid.

The majority of impassioned and frank discussions with the left, from my side , often gets them to claim I hate the poor, or am just greedy, self deluded and so on. And when I share what I’ve done in my past, to try to convince them otherwise, they get mad . Good people can disagree on how to solve things. Or even on priorities of what should be solved first.

In 2009 Republicans Predicted That The Economic Stimulus Package Would Only Make The Recession Worse And Cause More Unemployment

The results show they couldn’t have been more wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ended the recession after only a few months. Although 750,000 people were losing their jobs each month when Obama took office, after the Recovery Act was passed the rate of job loss immediately decreased each month and within a year the economy showed positive job growth.

Considering the severity of the 2008 economic collapse and the total opposition by Republicans to do anything at all to stimulate the economy, it is remarkable that the US economy recovered as quickly as it did.

Looking at the rate of job loss and job creation, its easy to see that the stimulus of 2009 was highly successful in stopping the job losses and turning the economy around.

Also Check: How Many People Are Registered Republicans

Republicans Said Waterboarding And Other Forms Of Enhanced Interrogation Are Not Torture And Are Necessary In Fighting Islamic Extremism

In reality, waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation that inflict pain, suffering, or fear of death are outlawed by US law, the US Constitution, and international treaties. Japanese soldiers after World War II were prosecuted by the United States for war crimes because of their use of waterboarding on American POWs.

Professional interrogators have known for decades that torture is the most ineffective and unreliable method of getting accurate information. People being tortured say anything to get the torture to end but will not likely tell the truth.

An FBI interrogator named Ali Soufan was able to get al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah to reveal crucial information without the use of torture. When CIA interrogators started using waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods, Zubaydah stopped cooperating and gave his interrogators false information.

Far from being necessary in the fight against terrorism, torture is completely unreliable and counter-productive in obtaining useful information.

0 notes

statetalks · 3 years

Text

What If The Republicans Win Everything Again

The Mail Ballot Factor Is A Wild Card

Saagar Enjeti: Trump WON The GOP Civil War, But Can They EVER Win Again?

Early on, California election authorities decided to proactively send mail ballots to all registered voters, just as they did in the pandemic general election of 2020. They can be returned via enclosed postage paid envelopes or dropped off at voting centers on September 14. So, if California Democrats do become motivated to vote, it wont be hard for them to do so. And you do have to wonder if Donald Trumps demonization of mail ballots during and after the 2020 presidential election might still inhibit Republicans from voting that way, even if there remains an option for turning in ballots in person.

Newsom Is Embracing A Risky Message Telling Voters To Ignore The Replacement Race

Without question, the 2003 recall election haunts todays recall opponents. There is a strong belief that Davis lost because his lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, jumped into the replacement race and drew voters into supporting the recall without mustering enough support to beat Schwarzenegger. So, Team Newsom not only kept credible Democrats from running to replace him; theyve also tried to discourage Democratic voters from answering the second question on the ballot about their preference among replacement candidates. As Politico noted recently, this one-and-done messaging may be confusing or even angering the very voters Newsom needs:

Its kind of counterintuitive to forgo your right to vote,;said;Barbara OConnor, director emeritus of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State. Everyone is in a conundrum about what they should do.

What makes the pay-no-attention-to-the-replacement-candidate-behind-the-curtain instruction to Democrats especially confusing is a new round of anti-recall ads attacking replacement front-runner Larry Elder as to the right of Trump. If Elder is so evil, shouldnt Democrats vote for someone else in the field of 45 other candidates, some of whom identify as Democrats? Its unclear.

What If Trump Wins

For many people, the prospect of what might happen if Donald Trump wins a second term is too awful to contemplate. But, as we are witnessing with the coronavirus, not contemplating scenarios that have at least some chance of happening is a grave mistake. Indeed, its a mistake that helped elect Trump in the first place.

Ideally, the press corps would be hard at work exploring this question. Alas, it is not. In the thousands of presidential campaign stories that have been published this year, you will be hard pressed to find much reporting or informed speculation about what policies Trump might pursue if hes reelected, or what the consequences might be if he were successful in enacting them. Thats not because such things arent knowable in advance. If that were the problem, political reporters wouldnt have spent the last six months gaming out which candidates were, say, likely to win which primaries. The real reason campaign journalists dont do this kind of work is that its not what theyre trained to doand, perhaps, its not what most people want to read.;

Read Also: How Many Registered Republicans In Texas

The Gop Would Rather Nation Crumble Than Give Democrats Political Win On Infrastructure

Politics in Washington is full of playacting, but few recent charades have been as absurd as the extended negotiation between Democrats and Republicans over whether they can agree on a bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Now it seems to be approaching its inevitable end: Republicans now say they’ll be making a counteroffer to the latest White House offer, even as everyone tells reporters how poorly negotiations are going.

All of which provides an excellent case study in how the two parties are motivated and constrained by their political incentives, regardless of what they might think about the substantive issue at hand.

Let’s start by considering three possible outcomes of this effort. First, Congress could pass a meaningful infrastructure bill with support from members of both parties. This is what both sides say they want .

Second, Democrats could pass an infrastructure bill with zero Republican votes. This is probably what will end up happening, provided that Sens. Joe Manchin III and Kyrsten Sinema , self-appointed guardians of bipartisan compromise, can be persuaded that the effort to win the support of Republicans was performed with sufficient enthusiasm.

Third, the bill could fail altogether, either because Manchin or Sinema pulls their support, or because a Democratic senator falls ill and can’t vote for it in the 50-50 Senate, or for some other reason.

Bipartisan passage of the bill Democrats-only passage of the bill Failure of the bill

What Motivates The Republican Party

The GOP seems wildly hypocritical and unprincipled, until you understand its guiding idea.

In the fall of 2014, the Obama White House was busy trying to stop the spread of Ebola. The administration sent advisers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assist the afflicted countries health ministries, and it sent troops to West Africa to build emergency hospitals. It began screening people arriving in the United States from at-risk nations. It isolated and treated several American medical personnel who contracted the virus abroad and brought it back home.

Toward the end of his new book, The Imposters, Steve Benen reminds us of what the Republican Party was doing while all of this was happening:

As Election Day neared . . . Kentucky Republican eagerness to exploit public anxieties started to spin out of control. Paul publicly questioned Ebola assessments from the actual experts, blamed political correctness for the Ebola threat, and traveled to battleground states questioning whether Obama administration officials had the basic level of competence necessary to maintain public safety.

He added soon after, describing a hypothetical flight, If this was a plane full of people who were symptomatic, youd be at grave risk of getting Ebola. If a plane takes twelve hours, how do you know if people will become symptomatic or not?

The Impostors:How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politicsby Steve BenenWilliam Morrow, 384 pp.

Ed Kilgore

Read Also: What Is Trump’s Approval Rating Among Republicans

How Far Can A Governor Take Emergency Powers

Republicans have criticized Newsoms use of emergency power during the coronavirus pandemic, saying hes exerted too much control without the usual checks and balances. As the pandemic sidelined normal work in the Legislature last year, Newsom issued as many executive orders in 2020 as his predecessor did in eight years.;

Assemblymember Kevin Kiley a Rocklin Republican now running in the recall election sued Newsom to try to limit his emergency power, but ultimately lost in court. With that ruling that a governor has broad authority to change or rescind laws during an emergency, GOP candidates are now talking about how theyd use such power themselves.

I would not use executive authority to create new laws and new policies, as this governor has, Kiley said in an interview with CalMatters. But I would use it to unwind things that never shouldve been there to begin with.;

Kiley said he would end Newsoms pandemic emergency declaration, which would set the stage for reversing related public health rules, such as the requirement that children wear masks at school and that state employees and health care workers get vaccinated against COVID-19 . Other GOP candidates also pledge to reverse Newsoms mask and vax orders.;;;

But the major Republican recall candidates are talking about using emergency powers for a lot more than the pandemic.;

Kevin Faulconer, the Republican former mayor of San Diego, said he would to speed up prevention efforts to clear trees and brush.;

Republican Party Faces Rage From Both Pro

By Peter Eisler, Chris Kahn, Tim Reid, Simon Lewis, Jarrett Renshaw

13 Min Read

WASHINGTON – After riots at the U.S. Capitol by President Donald Trumps supporters, the Republican Party is facing defections from two camps of voters it cant afford to lose: those saying Trump and his allies went too far in contesting the election of Democrat Joe Biden – and those saying they didnt go far enough, according to new polling and interviews with two dozen voters.

Paul Foster – a 65-year-old house painter in Ellsworth, Maine – is furious at party leaders for refusing to back the presidents claims that the election was stolen with millions of fraudulent votes. The party is going to be totally broken if it abandons Trump, Foster says, predicting Trump loyalists will spin off into a new third party.

I just wish he would run away with his tail between his legs, Cupelo says.

Though Republicans have now lost control of the White House and both houses of Congress in just four years, Trumps base remains a potent electoral force in the party. That base helped him capture more voters some 74 million than any Republican in history. The vast majority of his supporters, including 70% of Republicans, remain loyal, according to new Reuters/Ipsos polling conducted days after last weeks riot at the Capitol, and many activists say theyre willing to abandon the GOP for any perceived slight against their leader.

You May Like: Did Republicans And Democrats Switch Names

Theres Even More Drama On The Horizon

Sparse polling of the recall election has shown a tightening contest on whether or not to remove Newsom. Elder also has a growing lead in the replacement race, though at least one poll has YouTube financial advisor and self-identified Democrat Kevin Paffrath actually topping the field. Team Newsom probably has mixed feelings about future polling, fearing both confirmation of the trend favoring Newsoms removal and less alarming numbers that might let Democrats relax back into complacency and indifference.

The anti-recall effort has the resources to dominate paid advertising down the stretch , but it will need to settle on a consistent message and combat the growing word of mouth among Republicans that this is the moment theyve all been waiting for. Another variable involves the internal dynamics of the replacement race. With no general election on tap , Elders Republican rivals have no reason to hold back from savagely attacking him from one angle as Democrats attack him from the other. If late polls show a rival catching up with the talk-show host, it could have a hard-to-predict effect on turnout or might even vault Paffrath into the governorship should Newsom fall.

What If 19 Alternate Histories Imagining A Very Different World

Caller: Can Republican Party Ever Win Again?

Alternate history, long popular with fiction writers, has also been explored by historians and journalists. Here are some of their intriguing conclusions.

1. What if the South won the Civil War?

Effect: America becomes one nation again in 1960.

Explanation: In a 1960 article published in Look magazine, author and Civil War buff MacKinlay Kantor envisioned a history in which the Confederate forces won the Civil War in 1863, forcing the despised President Lincoln into exile. The Southern forces annex Washington, DC renaming it the District of Dixie. The USA moves its capital to Columbus, Ohio now called ;Columbia but can no longer afford to buy Alaska from the Russians. Texas, unhappy with the new arrangement, declares its independence in 1878. Under international pressure, the Southern states gradually abolish slavery. After fighting together in two world wars, the three nations are reunified in 1960 a century after South Carolinas secession had led to the Civil War in the first place.

2. What if Charles Lindbergh were elected President in 1940?

Effect: America joins the Nazis.

3. What if Hitler successfully invaded Russia?

Effect: The Fuhrer is revered in history as a great leader.

4. What if James Dean had survived his car crash?

Effect: Robert Kennedy survives his assassination attempt.

5. What if President Kennedy had survived the assassination attempt?

Effect: Republicans win every election for the next 30 years.

6. What if Christianity missed the West?

Read Also: How Many Federal Judges Are Republicans

‘combative Tribal Angry’: Newt Gingrich Set The Stage For Trump Journalist Says

All these factors combined to produce a windfall for Republicans all over the country in the midterms of 1994, but it was a watershed election in the South. For more than a century after Reconstruction, Democrats had held a majority of the governorships and of the Senate and House seats in the South. Even as the region became accustomed to voting Republican for president, this pattern had held at the statewide and congressional levels.

But in November 1994, in a single day, the majority of Southern governorships, Senate seats and House seats shifted to the Republicans. That majority has held ever since, with more legislative seats and local offices shifting to the GOP as well. The South is now the home base of the Republican Party.

The 2020 aftermath

No wonder that in contesting the results in six swing states he lost, Trump seems to have worked hardest on Georgia. If he had won there, he still would have lost the Electoral College decisively. But as the third most populous Southern state, and the only Southern state to change its choice from 2016, it clearly held special significance.

Trump Says Republicans Would Never Be Elected Again If It Was Easier To Vote

President dismissed Democratic-led push for voter reforms amid coronavirus pandemic during Fox & Friends appearance

Donald Trump admitted on Monday that making it easier to vote in America would hurt the Republican party.

The president made the comments as he dismissed a Democratic-led push for reforms such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and early voting as states seek to safely run elections amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Democrats had proposed the measures as part of the coronavirus stimulus. They ultimately were not included in the $2.2tn final package, which included only $400m to states to help them run elections.

The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if youd ever agreed to it, youd never have a Republican elected in this country again, Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends. They had things in there about election days and what you do and all sorts of clawbacks. They had things that were just totally crazy and had nothing to do with workers that lost their jobs and companies that we have to save.

I dont want everybody to vote, Paul Weyrich, an influential conservative activist, said in 1980. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

The urgency of getting election officials those resources should not be lost in the political fighting, said Myrna Perez, director of the Brennan Centers voting rights and elections program.

Also Check: What Do Republicans Think About Healthcare

Reality Check 2: The Fight Is Asymmetricaland Favors The Gop

While Democrats gesture on Twitter at building new systems, Republicans are working the current one with ruthless effectiveness.

The threats to a free and fair election that have emerged since last November are realand require nothing more than the willingness of state legislators to use and abuse the existing tools of government. Arizona, whose two new voting rules were just validated by the Supreme Court, also took the power to litigate election laws away from the Secretary of State and gave the power to the Attorney General. In at least 8 states, Republicans are advancing legislation that would take power away from local or county boards. Many more states are moving to make voting harder. It might be anti-democratic, but it falls well within the rules.

Also within the rules: How McConnell helped build a federal bench almost certain to ratify the power of those legislatures to pass laws far more restrictive than the Arizona rules upheld last week. He creatively eviscerated Senate norms to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court and hand Donald Trump an astonishing three nominations in a single term. And hes recently suggested that, should a Supreme Court vacancy open, hed block even consideration of a Biden nominee if the Republicans take the Senate back in 2022. This is abnormal, anti-democratic and a cynical abuse of powerbut its legal within the existing rules.

The Plausible Solution: Just Win More

Whether the public sees Democratic demands for these structural changes as overdue or overreaching, the key point is that they are currently exercises in futility. The only plausible road to winning their major policy goals is to win by winning. This means politics, not re-engineering. They need to find ways to take down their opponents, and then be smarter about using that power while they have it.

They certainly have issues to campaign on. In the few weeks, we have learned that some of Americas wealthiest people have paid only minimal or no federal income tax at all. Even as the Wall Street Journal editorial writers were responding to a Code Red emergency , the jaw-dropping nature of the reportfollowed by a New York Times piece about the impotence of the IRS to deal with the tax evasions of private equity royaltyconfirmed the folk wisdom of countless bars, diners, and union halls: the wealthy get away with murder.

Of course this is a whole lot easier said than done. A political climate where inflation, crime and immigration are dominant issues has the potential to override good economic news. And 2020 already showed what can happen when a relative handful of voices calling for defunding the police can drown out the broader usage of economic fairness.

Filed Under:

Read Also: How Many Senate Seats Do The Republicans Have

Can Democrats Avoid A Wipeout In 2022

Bidens plan: Go big or go home.

The good news for Democrats who watched Joe Biden unveil a historically ambitious agenda last night is that newly elected presidents have almost always passed some version of their core economic planparticularly when their party controls both congressional chambers, as Bidens does now.

The bad news: Voters have almost always punished the presidents party in the next midterm election anyway. The last two times Democrats had unified controlwith Bill Clinton in 199394 and Barack Obama in 200910they endured especially resounding repudiations in the midterms, which cost Clinton his majority in both chambers and Obama the loss of the House.

Theres a very different strategy this time, David Price, a Democratic representative from North Carolina and a former political scientist, told me. Theres an openness now to the sense that a bolder plan, ironically, might have greater appeal for independents and others we need to attract than trying to trim and split the difference with Republicans.

There is this recognition of this moment and how fleeting it is, and an evaluation that, absent the trifecta of control, it is very hard to move big policy, said a senior official at one of the partys leading outside advocacy groups, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategizing. So you have to take your shot. I think thats part of what undergirds Go big.

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/what-if-the-republicans-win-everything-again/

0 notes

qqueenofhades · 4 years

Note

Your political posts recently have been excellent. I was 17 during the 2016 election and watching everything go down while not being able to vote (and watching people choose not to vote) was horrible. I can’t believe how many people on the left seem to have forgotten 2016. I’m worried about the leftist twitter mob and the anti-trump conservatives in swing states who might not vote at all and the voter suppression. I’m so worried about everything right now.

Oof, hon. That is a Big Big Mood.

It’s a hard and surreal feeling when you’re having conversations, as have happened in my family and probably in many of yours, with your parents about what to do if we need to leave the country and flee to Canada (or wherever else) at a moment’s notice. My father is 67 years old and disabled, and he is so worried about all of this (as he damn well should be) because we’re well past the dress-rehearsal stages of fascism and into outright fascism. We are making serious plans to relocate permanently out of America no matter how the election goes, because I honestly cannot take this country at all anymore, and my family feels the same. We have had the conversation about “what if this country collapses and we have to get out.” It’s scary and it’s awful and I hate that we’re having to do this, and I hate even more that people are deliberately rejecting their chance (again, the LAST CHANCE WE HAVE) to reject Trump in a (somewhat) democratic fashion. No wonder we can’t remember history at all when we can’t even remember, as you point out, four years ago.

I just can’t with the renewed kerfuffle that the Harris pick has kicked up, not least because most of us knew or figured for a long time that it was coming. Somehow the twitterati wants us to believe that they would have happily skipped to their polling station to vote for Joe Biden, despite months of screaming about rapist/dementia/corporate ghoul/worse than Trump/senile/won’t follow through on his promises/insert tagline here, if only he hadn’t picked Kamala “Cop” Harris. (She’s a lawyer, not a cop, and her prosecutorial career also specialized in putting away male predators for rape and murder and taking financial giants to town for multibillion-dollar fraud settlements, aka the kind of people we want to see punished, but hey, all nuance is evil.) Because... come on.... seriously???

If Biden had picked Stacey Abrams (and don’t get me wrong, she was my favorite too for a while) the narrative would be about she is inexperienced and has never held any executive office (which she hasn’t), and this is bad because it means he’s senile. If Biden had picked Val Demings, who was ACTUALLY a cop, more cop screaming. If Biden had picked Karen Bass, they would have fixated on her remark praising Castro at his death (which she has subsequently apologized and retracted) and moaned about how this lost Florida. If Biden had picked Susan Rice, who was entangled with the whole Benghazi scandal, BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI HILLARY CLINTON EVIL would have been shouted by both the right and the left. If Biden had picked Elizabeth Warren, oh my god. FAKE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATE SHILL WHITE DEMON WHO DARED TO ATTACK BERNIE!!! would be bellowed from the rooftops. There is literally nobody who would have been Progressive enough for the leftist twitterites, and if they claim there is, they’re lying. Plus, the Vice President does.... not make policy??? He (or she, in this case, and I love that) is there to implement the President’s goals, to advise, consult, take over if necessary, and otherwise serve in a supporting role. So why the fuck on earth is a long-expected VP pick suddenly The Straw That Broke The Camel’s Back?

You wanna know the Upside Down we’re living in right now? Sarah Palin (yes, that Sarah Palin) has been openly more supportive of Kamala Harris than some of the supposed members of her own party for getting the pick. And that’s not because RAH RAH HARRIS’S POLICIES ARE JUST LIKE SARAH PALIN!!! Sarah Palin has offered her advice to Harris without a partisan bent and even said she’s happy to see her picked and that she hopes Harris isn’t attacked in the same way she was (fat chance) and that she should be confident and present herself to the American public as she is. And that is... surprisingly... not terrible advice?? And I’m genuinely happy that the only other female VP pick, as embarrassingly unprepared as she might have been, is doing that, while wondering how on earth we’re living in a world where, again, Sarah Palin is being more supportive than supposed Democratic voters. I don’t get it, chief.

The racist, misogynistic, “nasty woman” attacks on Harris have already eagerly begun from the right, the same stuff they hit Hillary Clinton with, and just as before, the left is eager to pile on rather than to defend their candidate, because they’d rather tear her down for not having policies that perfectly aligned with their own at all times rather than attack her outright fascist opponents. I don’t agree with everything Kamala has done either. But guess what? I DO agree with some things that she HAS done! And I’m going to defend her like crazy, because lord, I am tired of us eating our own. Kamala is experienced, competent, her nomination is historic, and she can clearly do the job. AND SHE IS STILL THE VICE PRESIDENT. NOT THE TOP OF THE TICKET.

The good news is: Biden has leads outside the margin of error in almost all swing states (which don’t matter a damn unless voters actually show up and vote, and we’ve already discussed how hard the GOP is deliberately making that, because they can only win by cheating) and far larger than Clinton’s leads at this time in 2016. Black voters, while being wary of some elements of Harris’s past, are largely very happy with the pick and agree that she can continue to evolve on her policy stances, and that the selection of a Black woman who has been a leader on criminal justice and police reform sends a strong message. Biden’s campaign had its best fundraising hour ever and ultimately raised $26 million in 24 hours after Harris joined the ticket, reflecting a surge of Democratic voter energy and enthusiasm. (That does not count leftists, who aren’t registered Democrats and don’t vote for Democrats and yet still act like their views are mainstream within the party.) So as loud and as obnoxious and maddening as they are, the hard left twitterati still aren’t actually the people that we are counting on as a core constituency. But this election is going to be very hard, and all the people threatening to sit out for some ridiculous moral-ideology reason are only going to make it harder for themselves and us.

I don’t know what to say. I spend a lot of time being scared too. Especially when it can feel like I’m yelling into the void over all this, and the sanctimonious circle-jerking baffles me beyond all reason. But we are not alone, we will do our best, and that is all we can ask for.

#politics for ts #your salty internet aunt is Fed Up kiddos #anonymous #ask

40 notes · View notes

nothingman · 6 years

Link

No political organization in the recent history of the world has had a gift for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Democratic Party. This is the party that has managed to lose three of the last five presidential elections, despite only once in that period getting fewer votes than the opposition. Although the Democrats nominally hold positions with broad majority support on a wide range of issues, following the heavy losses of the 2010 and 2014 midterms the party found itself in its worst nationwide position since the early 1930s.

For much of the 20th century, Democrats understood themselves to be the party of permanent hegemony on Capitol Hill, no matter who was in the White House: Between the Franklin D. Roosevelt election of 1932 and the Newt Gingrich election of 1994, the party held a House majority for 58 out of 62 years, and a Senate majority for 52 of 62. Sam Rayburn, a Democrat from an east Texas district that is now (of course) solidly Republican, was House speaker for more than 17 years, a record that will surely never be broken. That history has almost become a curse from the past, haunting the Democratic present; it’s like a lost paradise, and every few years a new messiah shows up to tell the faithful that (s)he knows the true path that will lead them back. Or it’s like the idyllic garden in “Alice in Wonderland,” which Alice knows she can reach if she can only squeeze through the door.

There is no garden, no path and no door. This mythic certainty that their kingdom will come again — expressed more recently in the mantra that “demographics is destiny” — has prevented Democrats from perceiving the true nature of their predicament. Over the last three decades, the party has been virtually wiped out in numerous states between the coasts where it was once competitive (or even dominant). It now holds a legislative majority in just 14 states. You can slice and dice the history of American party politics in all sorts of tedious ways, but there is no clear precedent for such an imbalance. More to the point, there’s no precedent whatever, in the United States or anywhere else, for a situation where one party appears to represent majoritarian opinion and typically gets more votes, but has conclusively been shut out of power.

Oh but wait, you say: Blue wave incoming! Yeah, whatever. Presented with the powerful unifying force of a massively unqualified and uniquely divisive president, Democrats may indeed win a House majority this fall. (The Senate remains unlikely.) But I don’t feel like betting the ranch on that outcome, do you? What may be even more impressive than the Democratic record of losing winnable elections is the party's aptitude for finding someone else to blame every time it happens. It was the Russians. It was Ralph Nader. It was the Swift-boat ads. It was liberal complacency. It was gerrymandering. It was all the mean things Republicans said. It was the unfortunate fact that the voters don’t like us all that much, which definitely isn’t our fault.

READ MORE: Bill Browder and Vladimir Putin: A tangled tale of two nations, two centuries and a lot of history

Over the past few weeks, ever since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's startling primary victory over Rep. Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., we’ve seen a remarkable display of intra-party, bad-faith concern trolling — an area where Democrats have set a high standard. Various “mainstream” or “moderate” figures in or around the party are already seeking to pin blame for a hypothetical November defeat, in advance, on the insurgent “socialist” faction associated with Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders. My daring analysis: This does not bespeak enormous confidence.

To be fair, Democrats of all factions and ideologies were united this week in telling former FBI director James Comey — a lifelong Republican, at least until he worked for President Donald Trump — to shut up and go away after offering unsolicited advice to Democratic voters:

Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership.

— James Comey (@Comey) July 22, 2018

Lordy, no -- not the socialist left! As many people observed, the guy who may have single-handedly tipped the balance in the 2016 presidential election should perhaps not view himself as a fount of political wisdom. But at least Comey’s tweet seemed like a sincere opinion, consistent with his grandiose view of himself as a white knight who embodies all the most honorable tendencies of America in one extremely tall white man.

Joe Lieberman, however, the onetime Connecticut senator and 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, is just an odious little garden gnome, in constant danger of being peed on by the family Schnauzer. He seems, in fact, to have undergone the same process of physical and intellectual shrinkage as Rudy Giuliani: Was this a bargain offered by an evil sorcerer, which conveys immortality at the cost of one’s soul, stature and spine?

Lieberman was purely trolling, in especially distasteful fashion, in writing a July 17 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Red-baited Ocasio-Cortez with an extraordinary assortment of lies and urged Crowley, the 10-term incumbent she defeated in the June Democratic primary, to run against her on a third-party line in the fall. Since the Journal article is behind a paywall, here's a taste:

Because the policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems. Thanks to a small percentage of primary votes, all of the people of New York’s 14th Congressional District stand to lose a very effective representative in Washington.

Fortunately, Joe Crowley and the voters in his district can prevent this damage. On Election Day, his name will be on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Working Families Party. But for Mr. Crowley to have a chance at getting re-elected, he will have to decide if he wants to remain an active candidate. I hope he does.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country or require very large tax increases, including on the working class. Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.

First of all, Lieberman surely knows that Crowley will do no such thing — he’s a decent guy and a party loyalist, and the PR damage would be enormous — and that Crowley would lose even worse the second time around. (I live in the 14th district; I doubt Lieberman has been here in 30 years, except crossing overhead on the Cross-Bronx Expressway.)

Secondly, the actual point here may be to none-too-subtly remind Journal readers that Lieberman himself ditched the Democratic Party after his own primary defeat in 2006, and endorsed John McCain against Barack Obama in 2008. Whose interests is he serving by encouraging Democrats, in the pages of the house organ of Big Capital, to sabotage a young, progressive woman of color?

None of this makes clear why powerful people like Comey and Lieberman are so worried about a small-scale insurrection within the Democratic Party that is nowhere near as "far from the mainstream" as they pretend, and is also a long way from staging a coup and hanging portraits of Trotsky and Che in DNC headquarters. Socialist-dread syndrome also appears to have driven the recent gathering of “moderate” Democrats in Columbus, Ohio, under the aegis of the think tank Third Way, as reported in a widely circulated piece by Alex Seitz-Wald of NBC News (a former Salon staffer).

Several attendees said they were worried that single-payer health care and abolishing ICE and other Bernie-fied policy proposals of the “angry left” would alienate swing voters and damage the party’s prospects for victory in the midterms. That’s at least a valid debating point, although it has been the Democratic default setting for decades. (And has led to that, um, amazing record of uninterrupted winning.)

I was struck by the comments of former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, who admitted that Democratic moderates find themselves on the defensive in ideological terms: "The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," he told Seitz-Wald. "I think we need a debate within the party. Frankly, it would have been better to start the conversation earlier."

Markell is absolutely right: A debate is overdue. But a debate about what? The problem for Democratic moderates is precisely that they will not define or explain their positions clearly, except in wonky, granular, political-calculus terms, in large part because their ideas are widely discredited and massively unpopular.

Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois told reporters in Columbus that she stands for "a silent majority who just wants normalcy. Who wants to see that people are going out to Washington to fight for them in a civil way and get something done. ... There's a lot of people that just don't really like protests and don't like yelling and screaming." As Seitz-Wald observes, Bustos sounded more like a Nixon-era Republican than a traditional Democrat, but in any case that's a statement about messaging and style that deliberately avoids any discussion of ideology or specific policy proposals.

At the Democratic convention in 2016, I tried to find a single elected official or candidate who would tell me, straight up, that the financial deregulation and free-trade agreements and welfare cuts and mass incarceration policies of the Bill Clinton years had generally been good ideas, whatever bumps we might have encountered along the way. Nobody would do it — but I don’t think that was because none of them believed it.

Attendees at the Third Way conference were clearly aware that middle-path Democrats will need big, new ideas in order to compete successfully with Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage, debt-free college and the other dangerous pinko proposals that would have had near-unanimous support in the pre-Reagan Democratic Party. Here's what they came up with: A private-sector, employer-funded universal pension plan to supplement Social Security. OK, I'm just spitballing, but that probably isn’t going to suck the wind out of the red sails of Bernie’s fleet and sweep Mitch Landrieu (or whomever) into the White House.

I’m not saying that so-called moderate or mainstream Democrats don't have ideas worth discussing or don’t possess a legitimate ideology. I am saying, with Jack Markell, that it’s long past time for them to tell us clearly what they believe and defend it forcefully. Because there’s a widespread sense that the Democratic Party has some hidden agenda or obscure set of motives beneath its bland, corporate, coalition-building exterior, and that has been infinitely more damaging than any amount of socialist fervor. On the right, it has fueled the perception that Democrats are a pack of conspiratorial scolds who want to limit the freedoms of others -- and so has driven conservatives to the polls. On the left, it has fueled the perception that the party is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs and its ilk -- and so has driven progressive apathy. (If neither stereotype is fair, neither is entirely false.)

This quantum ideological uncertainty is what drove people crazy about Hillary Clinton, I think, fueling the Trumpian narrative that she was deceptive or dishonest. (Which was hilarious in that context, needless to say.) She seemed impossible to pin down, first attacking Bernie Sanders as a wild-eyed radical, then gradually embracing the “progressive” label and finally running on a platform that incorporated most of his ideas. She seemed insulted by the suggestion that her Goldman Sachs speeches created any kind of political problem or required any explanation.

Clinton's political flexibility or malleability -- according to the conventional Democratic playbook -- was supposed to be a source of strength, a sign that she was a hard-headed, pragmatic decision-maker who would not be guided by doctrine. Amid the reversed magnetic field of the 2016 election, against an opponent who repeated the same forceful (if meaningless and insincere) phrases over and over again, it just looked like mendacity.

Like her entire generation of Democrats, Clinton had been programmed down to the cellular level with the early-‘90s creed that ideology itself was dangerous and toxic and likely to scare away suburban voters who just wanted civility and decency and problem-solving. Well, folks, I’m not a liberal or a conservative. I’m more of a Republibservatron! This avoidance or denial of ideology — the ideology of no-ideology — had perverse results: It elected two Democratic presidents to two terms apiece but left their party rootless and in ruins, seemingly defenseless before a deranged radical minority with a decaying relationship to reality (but no shortage of fervent ideology).

It’s tempting to say that a specter is haunting the Democratic Party and it’s the specter of socialism, blah blah blah. But that’s largely untrue: The specter is imaginary and so is the socialism, pretty much. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their loose array of allies across the country are a modest contingent within the party. Only a handful of them will win elections this year, and in any case they’re closer to being old-time left-wing populists, with a 21st-century overlay of multiculturalism and intersectionality, than, you know, to this:

VIDEO

Hubert Humphrey, the leading Democratic moderate of Hillary Clinton’s youth, would find little to object to in Ocasio-Cortez’s platform, beyond the labeling on the package. (Once the Happy Warrior figured out what ICE and super PACs were, and what they had done to America, he’d go out and ring doorbells in her district.) Then again, Humphrey had no fear of open and often heated ideological conflict, which was a staple of Democratic discourse for decades and is exactly what the “democratic socialist” insurrection has reintroduced since 2016.

Those who shut down such internal conflict and purged the activist left from the Democratic Party, on the premise that it was the only possible way to win elections in a "centrist," anti-ideological nation, have never faced the consequences of their historic blunder. They have lost repeatedly and on a grand scale, insisting every time that they really should have won — or in some other, better world, did win — and that whatever went wrong was somebody else’s fault. They are the ones who appear committed to an inflexible, dogmatic ideology that is out of step with political reality. They are surprised and outraged to learn that if they want to continue their losing streak, they will have to fight for it.

Does the Democratic Party need an overhaul?

New York congressional candidate Max Rose hopes to flip NYC's lone Republican seat -- but says his party must change.

via Salon

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

1 note · View note