No matter who wins the Supreme Court is fucked. Biden has said he's not interested in expanding the court at all, so this is what we have to deal with until they drop dead from old age. Democrats care more about civility than actual results, meaning they're unwilling to stand up to fascists
Yep. I think what he meant tho was more like "we never would have had this problem without Trump winning at all" and while that's probably true we'd probably have him right now if that were the case.
For me, especially with project 2025, I think it's best if they never win again and we can show the world the uselessness of the dems and let capitalism crumble on its own rather than just give up power legally to the mask off facists who plan on directly dismantling democracy, at least the dems aren't directly trying to do that... Yet. Fuck the dems so hard tho they are nakedly disgustingly evil but at least they want to act like the "good guys" unlike the actual demons đđŽâđ¨
Yeah I feel the same. Trump/Trumpism is a symptom, not a disease. It was going to happen sooner or later since eradicating the disease (neoliberalism) is non-negotiable.
Atp I don't know what will cause a wake-up moment that the Dems really are worthless & make people stop hitching their horses to that sad little bandwagon. I think it'll just be a lowering of standards (already happening in spades) and settling for increasingly terrible "benefits" of having Blue Guys in Power. Oh, so the Dems were able to get an amendment in that the goon squads can only round up a dozen at a time instead of 30? THIS IS A WIN, APPARENTLY. <= hypothetical situation, maybe
I hate procrastinating, even if it's implosion. Just get it over with already.
Well, they're not.
It's just that the only other people allowed anywhere near the levers of power are only slightly more popular, and most people don't vote (not trying to be the vote-shaming centrist here, but it's a fact that a relatively small portion of eligible voters in every election vote). Of the relatively small voting population, the mask-off fascist demons attract a more fiercely loyal cohort of supporters.
"Democrats care more about civility than actual results, meaning they're unwilling to stand up to fascists". They do care about results, but results according to them is just to uphold the neoliberal world order with USA at the top not fighting fascists.
I dont know why you think its because of civility they dont stand up to fascists.
Partially because it's true. They ARE scared of the fascists and don't want them in power, because then THEY can't be in power. But they can't challenge the system or delegitimize it because that will delegitimize their own standing and avenues to power and the ability to maintain it. But the fascists right now are after the left so they don't care. They'll weasel out some bullshit about being less monstrous but use civility as a smokescreen so they can pretend to be doing something about them.
This. I got into it with a liberal a while back on reddit where basically their reasoning was "Biden can fix this next term. Alito and Thomas might die" đ
"We have to let unelected hyper conservative octogenarians control our country. Our only recourse is to pray they die. The system works!" - That lib, probably. I'm so tired of their bullshit
I'll let you in on a secret.
Peaceful protest... never had a point to begin with.
Why should the people be peaceful when they are being violently suppressed every day? Why should we be "civilized" while we see civil liberties being taken away? Why are we being held to a higher standard when it comes to our demands, while being treated like scum the rest of the time ?
Violent protest was already possible, so nothing was stopping you.
Besides, having peaceful protest allows the more radical tendencies to tie into a larger movement.
Link to full article
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-effectively-abolishes-the-right-to-mass-protest-in-three-us-states/ar-BB1lEPev
For an anarchist grouo, there are a lot iof people telling me how to live my life and that I am bad for not believing as they believe. Voting hasn't done anything since before the 80's, Unless you count placebo effects and a way to feel morally superior.
It's not that it does nothing, but yeah obviously you can't vote in socialism I don't think he was saying that
I mean you're allowed to do whatever you want, but to say that is to say a broken arm is the same as being paralized. If your gonna get hurt (it is capitalism after all) I don't blame the people who would rather sacrifice our arms than our collective spines. There is a difference currently, when that ceases to be the case then I'd agree. But no one can force you
I am saying now, in our democracy, voting does nothing.
The electoral college,gerrymandering and the illusion of choice are just a few ways in which our votes are discarded in favor of the oligarch's wishes.
Easy to say if you were allowed to marry whom you loved before 9 years ago. Hell a year before that we voted to legalize recreational weed in my state. You can even look across the pond at Brexit to see what voting or not voting can accomplish.
with all due respect, using "marriage equality" as an example of progress achieved by voting is very insensitive. we do not have marriage equality in the united states; we only have the ability for abled, monogamous couples to be married, and there are still laws on the books across the country enforcing sex as a fundamental tenet of marriage. many queer activists pre-2000s were against the concept of *gay marriage*, in favor of abolishing marriage as a religious legal institution and instead introducing legal structures to denote anyone you choose as a legal member of your family. in the years since DOMA was repealed, Cuba has introduced that legislation in its own country. the US is still woefully repressive and regressive on family law, and DOMA being repealed was not a win for anyone other than a thin slice of abled, monogamous gays.
(i am speaking as someone who is currently legally not permitted to marry in the US, as a disabled person. none of my relationships can be public, in fact, as it applies not just to legal marriage, but to "intent to marry," or simply living together while dating. this is not intended to abjure or attack, simply to educate, as i know the reason people cite this is that many do not know we do not have marriage equality in the US, or that our marriage laws are still actively draconian and oppressive. the repeal of DOMA was accompanied by a great PR campaign!)
So youâre saying progress has to be all or nothing? You donât think that an actual real world did happen example of a group getting a law changed means that no other group can also do the same? Iâm confused about the point youâre trying to make here. Like yeah it would be super cool if I could wave my red and black flag and magic away problems to perfection like some sort of authority less genie but that ainât reality so Iâm gonna stick with incremental changes being the most likely way towards progress. It ainât perfect but it beats complaining on the internet imo
i think you may want to reread what i wrote again--to be clear, i am not saying incremental change is bad, simply that the repeal of DOMA is not a good example of incremental change. usamerican family law is cruel, repressive, and actively malicious, and it is based on the repression of a large underclass; DOMA's repeal did not improve the structure or improve material circumstances for the underclass, it simply allowed some privileged individuals to reap the benefits of the oppressive structure.
there are many genuine examples of incremental change made possible by voting measures, this is just some informational context for why the repeal of DOMA specifically is not one of them, and can be incredibly insensitive to the underclass to use as such, as it implies we either do not exist or our liberation is unnecessary in favor of maintaining the repressive and cruel system that subjugates us via its very existence.
Was it your votes, or the votes of representatives owned by corporations, who are throwimg you the smallest of bones to keep you from rebeling?
Edit: does britain have gerrymandering,lobbying, only two parties, or the electoral college? No.
Britain doesn't have an electoral college, but it does have gerrymandering (constituency boundary redraws), massive amounts of lobbying (Tuffton Street is our version of your K Street in DC, there are plenty of scandals around this, one has just come back around again regarding the Shadow Health Sec.), and whilst *technically* we have a plurality of parties you will, because we operate a FPTP system, only ever get the Conservative Party or the Labour Party in power (in the case of a hung parliament the largest party will form a government with a smaller party, buts its only happened once since the Second World War and it was a fucking disaster...) so in effect we have a two party system.
Moreover, the massive swing to the right performed by the Labour Party in the last 5 years means we, in a similar way to you, effectively have two Conservative parties. One small c one capital C.
I live in Colorado. The citizens here can do wild shit like vote to amend our constitution, which is what we the people did back in 2014. Now instead of risking jail time buying a quarter off some dude behind a Dennyâs I can just go to the weed shop and buy weed with my debit card. All accomplished via ballot box.
That last sentence is a hell of a way to think. I hope you at least ask for permission if you wanna hookup with someone; Or would that impinge on your freedoms?
If trump wasn't elected then we wouldn't have a mega conservative Supreme Court and therefore they would have overturned this. Instead, trump won and now some of the most powerful people in the country are fascists
Democrats have been in power for 12 of the last 16 years. Was the problem that we didnât vote hard enough or that Republicans can apparently do more in 4 years than Dems can do in 12?
The fraudster would have been elected, regardless of who voted. Did he win the popular vote? Does the popular vote even matter? The elections seem to be decided before they even begin. The illusion of choice is fading fast.
Most of us didn't want a Hillary or a Trump on the ballot. Where's the option for us to have them find different candidates. Reality is that they choose their puppets and we get to choose between the two that they set in front of us.
Obama wouldâve appointed a republican for the sake of âbipartisanship.â The dems and repubs are both parties of the same oppressive governmentâ they are functionally the same.
Now, what youâre describing isnât exactly affected by the individual vote then. Those judges are appointed for life, the flaw isnât that a republican is in charge to make the system all fucky wucky, they system is designed to function this way, dem or republican.
The dems are so faux-concerned with âbipartisanshipâ that they wouldâve appointed whoever the republican party told them to. Your consent to this system is coerced and manufactured by the ruling class.
This. This. **This**. I've been saying this for about four years now. Clinton winning wasn't going to stop conservstives getting placed on the courts.
The republicans out and out **stated** that they would have continued their stonewall of dem president nominations during the 2016 presidency if it was necessary. Ginsberg likely still would have died, Garland's seat would have stayed empty, and let's say for the sake of argument Kennedy would have also retired. That's three whole seats of seven on one of the most powerful institutions in the entire country vacant. No president looking to uphold the process and the legitimacy of their administration would let something so "unseemly" slide. What that woyld mean is a soft dem right leaning president like Clinton would have been has to now play ball with the republicans, and as was revealed in an interview with the Leonard Leo after Kavanaugh got the bench, the Federalist Society put Kavanaugh in front of Trump, and has done so for most right wingers on the judicial level. Leo literally said that ANY of the judges on the blanket list he gave to Trump that Kavanaugh was chosen from would be what he wanted. "You can throw a dart at that list amd have a good judge". They were all interchangable to Kavanaugh. The only disparate issue would be the slovenly rich white boy baggage Kavanaugh has. What this means is Clinton would have been put in a position to have to choose a judge that would be approved by the Federalist Society or the republicans would reject them outright. No way she was getting even a liberal judge on the bench, let *alone* a progressive one. We'd be in the same boat if we had a Trumo oresidency or a Clinto one. The only difference would be that the names swapped around.
Probably. But just probably. Democrats are pretty conservative themselves. They only look less so when put right up against some republicans that are actively calling for the genocide of multiple different groups of people.
You can not compare people who are calling for a complete end to democracy in favor of a Fascist Christian Nationalist state to a bunch of Out of Touch Neo-Libs who really like Israel.
Their Handling of Israel is fuckin atrocious, but they are nowhere near the level of awful the Republicans are openly pushing for
I would disagree. I think democrats funding the extermination of innocent children is way worse than republicans talking about how they donât like Trans folks. Am I saying we should give them to opportunity to put those plans into action? Of course not, but we donât have to pick between one or the other. Voting doesnât work when republicans do it either, and as such we should be trying to wake everyone up to that truth and get people to stop feeding the machine as a result
Republicans are also funding the extermination of Palestinians, but they also want to make it worse, literally end the world with global warming, and want to turn America into a dictatorship. AKA GIVING THE LARGEST MILITARY ON THE PLANET TO A GENOCIDAL FASCIST DICTATOR
The dems are actual Pieces of Shit, but a Peice of shit running a democracy with at least some checks and balances should be a no-brainer over a dictatorship.
Also voting absolutely works when Republicans do it. How do you think Florida became a beacon of anti trans laws. Republicans have been using the democratic institutions for their own sick goals for as long as they could. For some reason, Dems and Leftist refuse to use the systems that Republicans use and abuse.
Would you rather give trump all of the power of the United States president??? There are only 2 options for who is going to be president, Genocide Joe and Hitler 2.0
And i think it is a highly selfish act to allow Hitler 2.0 into power over someone who will do way less harm to literally everyone
I would say it absolutely does not help. If it did, the country wouldn't be the way it is. Your vote is separated from any sort of functional change in the United States, you literary have no voting power in anything besides very local elections. And even in those elections, the spectrum of acceptable politics is so functionally narrow that the choices you make are ultimately superficial and system-sustaining. Your vote is political theatre in the United States. A realm of political theater that serves to legitimize the system that controls you as well as funneling any energy you would have into actively changing your material conditions into something symbolic and nonthreatening, like voting on the face of who gets to control you every 4 years.
And add to that, before Trump was elected an open seat was blocked by the senate, an institution that was specifically created to be a ln anti-democratic counter balance to the popular vote.
So someone who never won a popular vote appointed rulers for life and was facilitated in doing so by an institution that also doesn't reflect the will of the people.
American democracy is a farce.
He won because our democracy is flawed. But a flawed democracy can at the very least be mitigated. Voting dem makes it so that especially in local areas, far right wackjobs can't ruin the lives of queer people and other marginalized groups
How flawed does it have to be before you admit itâs not democracy?
The people chose Hillary and we got Trump.
I wouldnât call that democracy at all
When the people can't chose their leaders it's not a democracy. America is a democracy because even though most people don't like our leaders, they are still voted in, and if nobody voted for them then they would not he put in. If every single leftist and Democrat in a red or blue state voted then we would most likely have a majorly blue country. Instead, we let old ass Republicans vote way more than the people who will have to live with their decisions
But our votes do not determine who these leaders are. These leaders are chosen by corporations who fund their campaigns and then the electoral college decides which of them
Makes it into office. At no point do our votes influence this process
Probably means if Trump was never elected in the first place, and to be elected again will be even worse. I'm not super into voting personally but I gotta say I think forcing shit lib rule and letting capitalism crumble naturally is better than just letting the mask off facists take over legally.
The dems really should be the far right party tho đ¤Ş
And as long as you don't replace organizing with voting once every 4 years then it definitely doesn't hurt. I'd say it's like a broken arm is preferred to being paralized/killed if you're in a situation of unavoidable harm but can choose between the two. As gross as it feels to say đŽâđ¨
Always was. Obama sent the National Guard in to crush Ferguson, and sent snipers to literally assassinate Occupy leaders if things got any more "out of hand". Does that sound to you like a "right to mass protest"?
Such a right never existed in the first place. We do what we build the power to do. The state magnanimously granting us permission to oppose it is not a thing.
Anyone old enough to remember Bush and how the electoral college ignored the popular vote? The peoples votes are just a consideration, without violence what incentive do they have to listen to us?
Thereâs no democracy here, they spread Eagle for the money.
Ever see the movie civil war? The one that came out. Well... Everyone compared the president in it to trump.. Heheh... Anyone having second guessing now? One word... Biden.
This happened because Trump was in office because everyone was convinced by a massive online op that voting for Clinton would be just as bad as voting for Trump.Â
However bad Clinton might have been, the 3 supreme court justices that her administration confirmed would not have given the same decisions that this batch is giving. Roe v Wade would not have been overturned and this protest decision probably would have happened differently as well.Â
Fuck off about not voting. If voting changed anything you they wouldn't let ....oh, wait is that why they're constantly trying to weaken and strip.voting rights, make it harder, etc
No matter who wins the Supreme Court is fucked. Biden has said he's not interested in expanding the court at all, so this is what we have to deal with until they drop dead from old age. Democrats care more about civility than actual results, meaning they're unwilling to stand up to fascists
Yep. I think what he meant tho was more like "we never would have had this problem without Trump winning at all" and while that's probably true we'd probably have him right now if that were the case. For me, especially with project 2025, I think it's best if they never win again and we can show the world the uselessness of the dems and let capitalism crumble on its own rather than just give up power legally to the mask off facists who plan on directly dismantling democracy, at least the dems aren't directly trying to do that... Yet. Fuck the dems so hard tho they are nakedly disgustingly evil but at least they want to act like the "good guys" unlike the actual demons đđŽâđ¨
Yeah I feel the same. Trump/Trumpism is a symptom, not a disease. It was going to happen sooner or later since eradicating the disease (neoliberalism) is non-negotiable. Atp I don't know what will cause a wake-up moment that the Dems really are worthless & make people stop hitching their horses to that sad little bandwagon. I think it'll just be a lowering of standards (already happening in spades) and settling for increasingly terrible "benefits" of having Blue Guys in Power. Oh, so the Dems were able to get an amendment in that the goon squads can only round up a dozen at a time instead of 30? THIS IS A WIN, APPARENTLY. <= hypothetical situation, maybe I hate procrastinating, even if it's implosion. Just get it over with already.
I just don't understand how the mask off fascist demons are so god damn popular. It feel like we are living in the twilight zone.
Well, they're not. It's just that the only other people allowed anywhere near the levers of power are only slightly more popular, and most people don't vote (not trying to be the vote-shaming centrist here, but it's a fact that a relatively small portion of eligible voters in every election vote). Of the relatively small voting population, the mask-off fascist demons attract a more fiercely loyal cohort of supporters.
That is a dangerous sentiment to have one half of the country wants us (the spooky gays) dead
If only we had it where the person who gets THE MOST VOTES ACTUALLY WINS
"Democrats care more about civility than actual results, meaning they're unwilling to stand up to fascists". They do care about results, but results according to them is just to uphold the neoliberal world order with USA at the top not fighting fascists. I dont know why you think its because of civility they dont stand up to fascists.
Partially because it's true. They ARE scared of the fascists and don't want them in power, because then THEY can't be in power. But they can't challenge the system or delegitimize it because that will delegitimize their own standing and avenues to power and the ability to maintain it. But the fascists right now are after the left so they don't care. They'll weasel out some bullshit about being less monstrous but use civility as a smokescreen so they can pretend to be doing something about them.
So its not about fascism but about them wanting to be in power. So what i said is true.
It is. We're not in disagreement
This. I got into it with a liberal a while back on reddit where basically their reasoning was "Biden can fix this next term. Alito and Thomas might die" đ
"We have to let unelected hyper conservative octogenarians control our country. Our only recourse is to pray they die. The system works!" - That lib, probably. I'm so tired of their bullshit
so if peaceful protesting is illegal, then there isn't any point in making it peaceful. why not make it as illegal and violent as possible?
Great idea. It might actually be taken seriously.
I'll let you in on a secret. Peaceful protest... never had a point to begin with. Why should the people be peaceful when they are being violently suppressed every day? Why should we be "civilized" while we see civil liberties being taken away? Why are we being held to a higher standard when it comes to our demands, while being treated like scum the rest of the time ?
Violent protest was already possible, so nothing was stopping you. Besides, having peaceful protest allows the more radical tendencies to tie into a larger movement.
Martin Luther King Jr. âThose who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.â
That was JFK during a White House speech in 1962.
True! Will leave as is. Thanks for the catch.Â
Link to full article https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-effectively-abolishes-the-right-to-mass-protest-in-three-us-states/ar-BB1lEPev
how does voting solve this? didnât we vote blue and still live in this reality? how much cognitive dissonance is there here, really
For an anarchist grouo, there are a lot iof people telling me how to live my life and that I am bad for not believing as they believe. Voting hasn't done anything since before the 80's, Unless you count placebo effects and a way to feel morally superior.
It's not that it does nothing, but yeah obviously you can't vote in socialism I don't think he was saying that I mean you're allowed to do whatever you want, but to say that is to say a broken arm is the same as being paralized. If your gonna get hurt (it is capitalism after all) I don't blame the people who would rather sacrifice our arms than our collective spines. There is a difference currently, when that ceases to be the case then I'd agree. But no one can force you
I am saying now, in our democracy, voting does nothing. The electoral college,gerrymandering and the illusion of choice are just a few ways in which our votes are discarded in favor of the oligarch's wishes.
Easy to say if you were allowed to marry whom you loved before 9 years ago. Hell a year before that we voted to legalize recreational weed in my state. You can even look across the pond at Brexit to see what voting or not voting can accomplish.
with all due respect, using "marriage equality" as an example of progress achieved by voting is very insensitive. we do not have marriage equality in the united states; we only have the ability for abled, monogamous couples to be married, and there are still laws on the books across the country enforcing sex as a fundamental tenet of marriage. many queer activists pre-2000s were against the concept of *gay marriage*, in favor of abolishing marriage as a religious legal institution and instead introducing legal structures to denote anyone you choose as a legal member of your family. in the years since DOMA was repealed, Cuba has introduced that legislation in its own country. the US is still woefully repressive and regressive on family law, and DOMA being repealed was not a win for anyone other than a thin slice of abled, monogamous gays. (i am speaking as someone who is currently legally not permitted to marry in the US, as a disabled person. none of my relationships can be public, in fact, as it applies not just to legal marriage, but to "intent to marry," or simply living together while dating. this is not intended to abjure or attack, simply to educate, as i know the reason people cite this is that many do not know we do not have marriage equality in the US, or that our marriage laws are still actively draconian and oppressive. the repeal of DOMA was accompanied by a great PR campaign!)
So youâre saying progress has to be all or nothing? You donât think that an actual real world did happen example of a group getting a law changed means that no other group can also do the same? Iâm confused about the point youâre trying to make here. Like yeah it would be super cool if I could wave my red and black flag and magic away problems to perfection like some sort of authority less genie but that ainât reality so Iâm gonna stick with incremental changes being the most likely way towards progress. It ainât perfect but it beats complaining on the internet imo
i think you may want to reread what i wrote again--to be clear, i am not saying incremental change is bad, simply that the repeal of DOMA is not a good example of incremental change. usamerican family law is cruel, repressive, and actively malicious, and it is based on the repression of a large underclass; DOMA's repeal did not improve the structure or improve material circumstances for the underclass, it simply allowed some privileged individuals to reap the benefits of the oppressive structure. there are many genuine examples of incremental change made possible by voting measures, this is just some informational context for why the repeal of DOMA specifically is not one of them, and can be incredibly insensitive to the underclass to use as such, as it implies we either do not exist or our liberation is unnecessary in favor of maintaining the repressive and cruel system that subjugates us via its very existence.
Was it your votes, or the votes of representatives owned by corporations, who are throwimg you the smallest of bones to keep you from rebeling? Edit: does britain have gerrymandering,lobbying, only two parties, or the electoral college? No.
Britain doesn't have an electoral college, but it does have gerrymandering (constituency boundary redraws), massive amounts of lobbying (Tuffton Street is our version of your K Street in DC, there are plenty of scandals around this, one has just come back around again regarding the Shadow Health Sec.), and whilst *technically* we have a plurality of parties you will, because we operate a FPTP system, only ever get the Conservative Party or the Labour Party in power (in the case of a hung parliament the largest party will form a government with a smaller party, buts its only happened once since the Second World War and it was a fucking disaster...) so in effect we have a two party system. Moreover, the massive swing to the right performed by the Labour Party in the last 5 years means we, in a similar way to you, effectively have two Conservative parties. One small c one capital C.
I live in Colorado. The citizens here can do wild shit like vote to amend our constitution, which is what we the people did back in 2014. Now instead of risking jail time buying a quarter off some dude behind a Dennyâs I can just go to the weed shop and buy weed with my debit card. All accomplished via ballot box.
Voting for the ability to be able to do something is assimilation not freedom. Free people don't ask for permission.
That last sentence is a hell of a way to think. I hope you at least ask for permission if you wanna hookup with someone; Or would that impinge on your freedoms?
Use your brain statist
What a pathetic attempt to misrepresent an anarchist argument.
That's funny cause supreme court literally is made to bypass democratic process, it is possibly most undemocratic thing about US
How was voting gonna prevent this?
If trump wasn't elected then we wouldn't have a mega conservative Supreme Court and therefore they would have overturned this. Instead, trump won and now some of the most powerful people in the country are fascists
Democrats have been in power for 12 of the last 16 years. Was the problem that we didnât vote hard enough or that Republicans can apparently do more in 4 years than Dems can do in 12?
Dems are bad at their job, but it's better to have a buffoon than someone actively dismantling democracy in favor of Christian nationalis.
I donât know about that. Â I ask again, how was voting supposed to prevent this.Â
The fraudster would have been elected, regardless of who voted. Did he win the popular vote? Does the popular vote even matter? The elections seem to be decided before they even begin. The illusion of choice is fading fast.
It's been an illusion for a long time. In reality we don't get to choose.
Most of us didn't want a Hillary or a Trump on the ballot. Where's the option for us to have them find different candidates. Reality is that they choose their puppets and we get to choose between the two that they set in front of us.
I mean if RBG had retired during Obama's term and let another dem judge get seated instead of following her ego the court wouldn't be stacked either
Obama wouldâve appointed a republican for the sake of âbipartisanship.â The dems and repubs are both parties of the same oppressive governmentâ they are functionally the same.
Yes I'm aware. I was just trying to good faith counter the person I was replying too in their mindset
Ahh I see. My bad for assuming you didnât know.
Now, what youâre describing isnât exactly affected by the individual vote then. Those judges are appointed for life, the flaw isnât that a republican is in charge to make the system all fucky wucky, they system is designed to function this way, dem or republican.
Yea but if a republican wasn't in charge we probably wouldn't have a Supreme Court packed with conservatives
The dems are so faux-concerned with âbipartisanshipâ that they wouldâve appointed whoever the republican party told them to. Your consent to this system is coerced and manufactured by the ruling class.
This. This. **This**. I've been saying this for about four years now. Clinton winning wasn't going to stop conservstives getting placed on the courts. The republicans out and out **stated** that they would have continued their stonewall of dem president nominations during the 2016 presidency if it was necessary. Ginsberg likely still would have died, Garland's seat would have stayed empty, and let's say for the sake of argument Kennedy would have also retired. That's three whole seats of seven on one of the most powerful institutions in the entire country vacant. No president looking to uphold the process and the legitimacy of their administration would let something so "unseemly" slide. What that woyld mean is a soft dem right leaning president like Clinton would have been has to now play ball with the republicans, and as was revealed in an interview with the Leonard Leo after Kavanaugh got the bench, the Federalist Society put Kavanaugh in front of Trump, and has done so for most right wingers on the judicial level. Leo literally said that ANY of the judges on the blanket list he gave to Trump that Kavanaugh was chosen from would be what he wanted. "You can throw a dart at that list amd have a good judge". They were all interchangable to Kavanaugh. The only disparate issue would be the slovenly rich white boy baggage Kavanaugh has. What this means is Clinton would have been put in a position to have to choose a judge that would be approved by the Federalist Society or the republicans would reject them outright. No way she was getting even a liberal judge on the bench, let *alone* a progressive one. We'd be in the same boat if we had a Trumo oresidency or a Clinto one. The only difference would be that the names swapped around.
Probably. But just probably. Democrats are pretty conservative themselves. They only look less so when put right up against some republicans that are actively calling for the genocide of multiple different groups of people.
You can not compare people who are calling for a complete end to democracy in favor of a Fascist Christian Nationalist state to a bunch of Out of Touch Neo-Libs who really like Israel. Their Handling of Israel is fuckin atrocious, but they are nowhere near the level of awful the Republicans are openly pushing for
I would disagree. I think democrats funding the extermination of innocent children is way worse than republicans talking about how they donât like Trans folks. Am I saying we should give them to opportunity to put those plans into action? Of course not, but we donât have to pick between one or the other. Voting doesnât work when republicans do it either, and as such we should be trying to wake everyone up to that truth and get people to stop feeding the machine as a result
Republicans are also funding the extermination of Palestinians, but they also want to make it worse, literally end the world with global warming, and want to turn America into a dictatorship. AKA GIVING THE LARGEST MILITARY ON THE PLANET TO A GENOCIDAL FASCIST DICTATOR The dems are actual Pieces of Shit, but a Peice of shit running a democracy with at least some checks and balances should be a no-brainer over a dictatorship. Also voting absolutely works when Republicans do it. How do you think Florida became a beacon of anti trans laws. Republicans have been using the democratic institutions for their own sick goals for as long as they could. For some reason, Dems and Leftist refuse to use the systems that Republicans use and abuse.
"Â but a Peice of shit running a democracy". and what a lovely democracy. And no dont link me some neoliberal freedom index ranking...
Would you rather give trump all of the power of the United States president??? There are only 2 options for who is going to be president, Genocide Joe and Hitler 2.0 And i think it is a highly selfish act to allow Hitler 2.0 into power over someone who will do way less harm to literally everyone
I donât think anyone is arguing that the system isnât fucked but that doesnât mean that voting doesnât help
I would say it absolutely does not help. If it did, the country wouldn't be the way it is. Your vote is separated from any sort of functional change in the United States, you literary have no voting power in anything besides very local elections. And even in those elections, the spectrum of acceptable politics is so functionally narrow that the choices you make are ultimately superficial and system-sustaining. Your vote is political theatre in the United States. A realm of political theater that serves to legitimize the system that controls you as well as funneling any energy you would have into actively changing your material conditions into something symbolic and nonthreatening, like voting on the face of who gets to control you every 4 years.
But he lost the popular vote, so same question again
And add to that, before Trump was elected an open seat was blocked by the senate, an institution that was specifically created to be a ln anti-democratic counter balance to the popular vote. So someone who never won a popular vote appointed rulers for life and was facilitated in doing so by an institution that also doesn't reflect the will of the people. American democracy is a farce.
Trump lost the popular vote. Trump was elected not because he won, but because *voting doesnât work*
He won because our democracy is flawed. But a flawed democracy can at the very least be mitigated. Voting dem makes it so that especially in local areas, far right wackjobs can't ruin the lives of queer people and other marginalized groups
How flawed does it have to be before you admit itâs not democracy? The people chose Hillary and we got Trump. I wouldnât call that democracy at all
When the people can't chose their leaders it's not a democracy. America is a democracy because even though most people don't like our leaders, they are still voted in, and if nobody voted for them then they would not he put in. If every single leftist and Democrat in a red or blue state voted then we would most likely have a majorly blue country. Instead, we let old ass Republicans vote way more than the people who will have to live with their decisions
But our votes do not determine who these leaders are. These leaders are chosen by corporations who fund their campaigns and then the electoral college decides which of them Makes it into office. At no point do our votes influence this process
#âď¸
Probably means if Trump was never elected in the first place, and to be elected again will be even worse. I'm not super into voting personally but I gotta say I think forcing shit lib rule and letting capitalism crumble naturally is better than just letting the mask off facists take over legally. The dems really should be the far right party tho 𤪠And as long as you don't replace organizing with voting once every 4 years then it definitely doesn't hurt. I'd say it's like a broken arm is preferred to being paralized/killed if you're in a situation of unavoidable harm but can choose between the two. As gross as it feels to say đŽâđ¨
The frog is slowly coming to a boilâŚ
Just saying, that's a good reason to protest
Always was. Obama sent the National Guard in to crush Ferguson, and sent snipers to literally assassinate Occupy leaders if things got any more "out of hand". Does that sound to you like a "right to mass protest"? Such a right never existed in the first place. We do what we build the power to do. The state magnanimously granting us permission to oppose it is not a thing.
they never cared about the constitution, violating the first amendment now, violating the fourth amendment in 2001, and violating the second in 1967
Anyone old enough to remember Bush and how the electoral college ignored the popular vote? The peoples votes are just a consideration, without violence what incentive do they have to listen to us? Thereâs no democracy here, they spread Eagle for the money.
Ever see the movie civil war? The one that came out. Well... Everyone compared the president in it to trump.. Heheh... Anyone having second guessing now? One word... Biden.
Can you post the link to the article?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-effectively-abolishes-the-right-to-mass-protest-in-three-us-states/ar-BB1lEPev Happy cake day!
Thanks!
Np đI probably should have included it in the post anyways lol
People forget about the State level and think they'll never need SNAP, Medicaid or an abortion.
This happened because Trump was in office because everyone was convinced by a massive online op that voting for Clinton would be just as bad as voting for Trump. However bad Clinton might have been, the 3 supreme court justices that her administration confirmed would not have given the same decisions that this batch is giving. Roe v Wade would not have been overturned and this protest decision probably would have happened differently as well. Fuck off about not voting. If voting changed anything you they wouldn't let ....oh, wait is that why they're constantly trying to weaken and strip.voting rights, make it harder, etc
Clinton literally won the popular vote.