Your people died under that flag while engaging in armed action against the Union, fighting for the side that wanted to preserve and enshrine slavery. You know, just in case anyone was misled by your bullshit, Chism.
Yeah, those fuckers killed men in the US Army. To preserve slavery. And then the officer corps and political leaders weren't executed at the end of the war like they should have been. John Brown got it worse for being a hero.
Absolutely. 40 acres and a mule. Along with the vote. During reconstruction many people in government were freedmen. Can you imagine what our country would be like now if that continued?
These racist fascists really have fucked things over
Progressives need to stop pretending that packing the court would open the door for conservatives to do the same.
At this point, conservatives will simply do the same if they lose control of it. They do not care about law and order and they do not care about mores. They only care about oppressing the weak and solidifying their power. The SCOTUS is a political institution that needs immediate reform.
We're racing to doomsday and they're leaning on the accelerator while progressives argue about whether it's safe to turn off the ignition.
Progressives know damn well that Republicans have already stacked the court. It's the establishment Democrats that are whining about an imaginary retaliation. You know, the centrists who are basically Republican lite, the assholes who whine about how extreme the Left-most parts of the party are, while ignoring how extreme the entire right-wing has always been.
We've seen this shit play out dozens of times in the past, the centrists say we progressives need to moderate ourselves to appeal more broadly, that we need to compromise or lose support. The reality plays out that any compromise we make is what loses us our support, and the centrists then side with the extremists on the right to hurt us more.
we shouldve been packing the court already. but nope democrats dont wanna rock the boat. something about when they go low we get high. no sorry, when they go low kick em in the fucking mouth.
Yeah, with what majority? There are only 47 Democrats and 2 independents who are interested in any politics left of center. Manchin, techincally a Democrat, will only vote for his personal, center-right beliefs, and Sinema, the only remaining independent has shown she's in it solely for personal financial gain. There was no time in which there were enough Democrats, excepting the two aforementioned posers, to add seats to the court or confirm any justice without some money changing hands. If it weren't about power or money we could have had 52 states (DC and PR) and at least 3 more truly democratic senators (considering the outside chance of a 50/50 split in PR). But that was impossible because it would have reduced the power of Manchin and Sinema, and that's the only reason for them to exist.
Like how the Dems won't get rid of the filibuster, while the Reps got rid of it to push through the judicial nominees. Or how the Dems did absolutely nothing about the Rep Senate ignoring Obamas nominee and then rushing through their own at the last minute to stack SCOTUS.
Dems just can't admit that they need to play on the Reps level because the other team openly cheating while you take the high ground just tolerating the intolerant.
It didn't originally exist in the Senate either, but the worse Vice President we ever had, decided that the Senate had too many rules and got rid of most of them. One of those original rules allowed any senator to call for a vote, even when someone was on the floor speaking.
This rule, called the previous question for some reason, still exists in the House, along with the Hour Rule which limits the time a Representative can spend holding the floor.
So we already have the framework to end the filibuster, but conservatives on both sides of the aisle like it because it means that they can thwart progress.
Of course, when it gets in the way, Republicans quickly carve out an exception for themselves, like they did with Judicial appointments.
The Senate is a useless and bad institution anyway. It's the US House of Lords, where land is being given rights to vote over people.
If we're swinging magic wands anyway, just get rid of it and give its duties to the House. Or maybe return it to being a governor-appointed advisory board that only has proforma powers over legislation that the House can override.
At a minimum, make it so Senators can cast as many votes as they have constituents. Do the same thing for reps in the House.
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...
Good old "Drug War Joe".
We could discuss how countless groups of college libs attack people who they aren't intelligent enough to have a conversation with. Or how the libs are trying to coerce speech through legislation with their fantasies concerning deadnaming and misgendering.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and acting like children.
Restrictions on education about sexual orientation and gender identity, a ban on gender-affirming care, an anti-trans bathroom bill, and measures that limit academic freedom and allow healthcare providers to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
Or, for the people who don't follow the religion of LGBTism... Laws concerning a reality check. "Gender affirming care" is mislabeled, should be "gender denial". Bathrooms are segregated based on sex to protect women from sick or aggressive men.
These are all great things, these people need mental help, and being their "yes men" or playing into their fantasy is not the help they need.
How is restriction on education ever a good thing? Maybe you should have educated yourself with studies on the topic, then you might not have embarrassed yourself like this.
Or maybe the government should stay out of people’s personal lives and let them live however the hell they want as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. These dweebs spend way too much time worrying about what is or isn’t in other people’s pants. Who cares?!
You might want to reevaluate your own education if you think "playing into a fantasy" makes any logical sense for how people treat each other...it's not a game.
Or, maybe you should consider that if what you're saying is true, why isn't there education on that, rather than the restriction of education on something that was approved elsewhere?
Or even how this entire "facade" can be held up all around social life, if in your eyes most of it is in regards to public bathrooms.
It honestly just sounds like you're poorly educated on the subject.
edit: Based on the fact most of what you're saying further down is just political talking points, and not anything based on something you yourself could've come up with...I think poorly educated is pretty right on the dot....
I understand the desire to educate, but this post just reeks of whataboutism. Which by the way is a popular method of normalizing horrible behavior favored by authoritarians and proto-facists.
Can you explain what she's done since she's been in office? All I see is her virtue signaling on social media. I wasn't a fan of her faked border pictures of her crying at a fence when it was proven there was nothing on the other side and she just did it for publicity. I've never seen her argue anything of actual substance and research beyond the usual Democratic dog whistles.
Please at least explain to me why you like her if you're gonna downvote me. Please be specific. Most people that like her just seem to like her because she's a Democrat but then she acts super sketch like when it came down to force the vote and her not voting in the direction that her supporters and constituents wanted. She just seems more like a typical neo-lib.
What is "virtue signaling" in this case? Proposing and advocating for progressive legislation? Refusing to vote on controversial policies that are endorsed by the party? Using her bully pulpit to try and push issues?
Voting no on the debt ceiling bill was not very "neoliberal". But I guess that "doesn't count" since it passed anyway?
Seems to me that "virtue signaling" is just a disingenuous way to discredit someone doing the job of being an elected legislator. Don't vote for her if you don't like her, but try to have an actual specific reason for it.
Virtue signaling as in, making sure people knows she's progressive by when it came to force the vote, when she needed to vote progressively, she didn't. She makes sure everyone is progressive but when it comes down to it, she's hasn't seemed to do much, but everyone calls her an all star because she says the words that progressives want to hear.
Also, some people just don't agree with her world view, which is perfectly fine. We are so astronomically in debt that simply saying you want to keep allowing spending of money we haven't had in decades feels very reckless, at least without the caveat that there needs to be serious cuts. The government is incredibly bloated and we are going to default hard at some point if we don't reign it in. There's nuance to be discussed here but I'm afraid kbin is gonna be just like Reddit where anyone that tries to open discussion or get answers will just be downvoted and hated on for simply not going with the site's progressive leaning.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide me more than just "she is fighting the corporate rot" when I haven't really actually seen any proof of that from her beyond just lots of talk and grandstanding on social media. That's the virtue signaling I'm referring to. And please don't do the "whataboutisms" with Republican members of congress because they certainly do it too and I'll call them out for it, but the current focus is on AOC.
Your take on the debt ceiling is at odds with history. When Democrats and Republicans pass bills that require spending, they are forcing the increase of the debt ceiling. This happened under Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, everyone. If Washington politicians were serious about limiting the debt, they would have not passed all of these bills.
If you think that politicians should care about national debt, then you need to be calling on them to reduce spending in ordinary legislation, not on debt ceiling legislation.
That being said, I don't know where you're going to find the savings. What does the federal government spend a lot of its money on? Social security medicare, medicaid, and the military. Which of those do you want to cut?
It didn't bother you that she went to the border and took photos fake crying about immigrants that weren't actually there? It's super phony and it's exactly the kind of trash that fires up her base on social media. She's an instigator and has some super naive views about the economy and fiscal policies that sound nice in theory but wouldn't play out properly in practice because she doesn't seem to understand even simple math. You can't just keep promising people free money. Our country is already 10s of trillions in debt. It's my biggest issue with progressives... Endless ideas but no feasible way of paying for it. Look at the homeless problem in California. It spawned a multi-million dollar industry that only continues to survive as they get more funding that is overwhelmingly soaked up by the administration itself.
It's why people like me are resistant to progressive ideas they all sound nice on paper and the default is just "tax the rich" when in reality, you can't keep this kind of spending going even if you taxed the top 1% at 90%. The Covid stimulus cost taxpayers nearly 1 trillion dollars. That's a one-time payment and again, with money we don't have. Please make it make sense and not with idealistic hand waving and just insisting that richest people could (or would) be able to fix our gross debt and out of control spending. The bubble has to pop at some point. Republicans are just as much to blame for the debt. Trust me, I'm not Republican, I just can't stand the politicians that just call everyone else names and label them awful things for simply asking questions or having a different point of view.
Basically, if a progressive advocates for a policy position, that's virtue signaling and bad. If a rep doesn't have all the answers and hasn't already passed all the legislation they shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess you don't vote often.
So long as the GDP raises faster than the debt payments you can continue raising the debt infinitely. This isn't a radical Progressive Theory it's basic macroeconomics. I agree, it's a bubble that will eventually pop. The bubble called capitalism. When your entire economic system can only function on the principle of growth it cannot be maintained forever. So we better be preparing right now for what comes after capitalism. One of the best things we can do is invest now in building the things we need built to survive it, not just as a nation but as a planet. I bet you don't have any helpful ideas for that, though.
To be clear though, Republicans/conservatives are certainly not "just as much to blame". They're much much more responsible. They refuse to do the policies that are maintenance of society and instead push off those payments until there's an economic catastrophe that requires huge spending bills to address.
Go join Strong Towns. That's what it looks like when a conservative actually tries to solve problems around financial sustainability. They have the kind of answers you're looking for. The fact that most conservatives label that organization as far left really tells you the state of American conservatism in general though.
And next time you want to talk about how bad AOC is just keep the framing to how dangerous hero worship in general is. People aren't going to disagree with you there. Don't whip out all these disingenuous Reddit-style argument strategies. Say the thing you actually care about instead of making up bullshit.
AOC as the Democrat's candidate seems like a path to another Trump-type Republican in the White House. There must be few Democrats the Republicans would prefer to face in a national election.
It might not be inspiring, but for now I just want the Democrats to nominate moderate presidential candidates who will win. Even the worst Democrat is light years ahead of the best post-Trump Republican. There's too much at stake and the world literally might not survive the consequences of the next Trump or Trump-like presidency.
I think the point is that having a Democratic candidate that far to the left would push centrists towards voting for a Republican, and there are a fair few of them like Trump.
Did you not read what I wrote? I said that AOC as the Democratic candidate means the Republican candidate has a much clearer route to win - she's a candidate to appeal to the Democratic faithful, not one for the swing voters.
The funny thing about free speech is that naming who is part of a hate group can likely be argued as free speech moreso than "whaaah, we got fired for the awful shit we said", given that it's called freedom of speech and not freedom from the consequences of my speech. Doubly so when you're talking about consequences brought about by a private organization/not the government. After all, their place of employment has freedom of speech rights too, as well as the ability to choose who they associate with.
The SCOTUS has been a force resisting civil rights and good governance for pretty much all of American history.
Too many middle-aged and older people these days grew up under the Warren court, but the Warren court was a fucking blip. An anomaly. An aberration.
They looked at the clock of the court, saw the sun high in the sky, saw the hands pointed at noon, and thought to themselves "Ah, everything is working fine." But the clock's dead broken and has been for centuries.
Agreed. I would like to see a radical restructuring of the court, with additional justices to provide a better plurality of opinion and a non-partisan ethics oversight committee with the power to force recusals and bring criminal charges to justices that fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
Desegregation, right to a defense attorney & Miranda rights, ending mandatory school prayer.
But also colloquially the era stretching a bit beyond where the court had a Liberal vision often including decisions in the 70s/80s decisions like roe v wade
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one. We just want to live our lives. Its the right who has an agenda. They worked hard to rig the court and are now making up lies to take to the court so the LGBTQ rights can be taken away. They want us back in the closet. And it's not just the LGBTQ community that they are looking to strip rights from. Non-christians, women, minorities, and workers to name a few.
Every accusation seems to be a projection from the right wing. They claim an agenda from their targets so that when they are accused of an agenda they can point to their own claims and say “We are just responding”
It also seems that their imagination is so limited; that when they are pressed to create something their opponents would do, they use one of their own actions or desires.
Also if their own actions or desires are so awful when projected onto their opponents; what does that say about them.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one.
Okay, but you can tell me what the gay agenda really is. Is it like the Jew agenda? Seems like that one came up a lot before people switched to talking about the gay agenda.
The lawsuit says the alleged "doxxings" cost the members their jobs and personal relationships.
Uhhh ... if the revealing of members caused those members to lose their jobs, it's because their employers determined that they don't want to employ Patriot Front members. Last I checked, without a specific contract, employment is at will.
This is good news, but I worry that folks on the left might be lulled into a false sense of security. We won't be done fixing Trump and MAGA's mess for years to come and we'll need every last vote and any help that can be given. I really believe complacency got us here and it will destroy this country if we let it.
Complacency is a real threat. Everyone needs to vote to remove republicans. They want to change the rules so they can always win. If enough Trump supporters were in the right places of power last election, we'd have lost our democracy.
Trump is a liar. But he is running a cult of fanatics. Ironically Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and he wouldn't loose any voters. He was correct about that.
Everyone needs to vote. Period. Doesn't matter which side you're on. If everyone actually in the voter rolls votes in person with ID, there's no room for either side to claim it was stolen or manipulated.
Not everyone can vote in person. I vote by mail because of my job. Voting by mail is legitimate.
And Trump claimed the 2016 and 2020 elections were rigged and stolen before the elections or counting was done. It is a way to for criminals to try to steal elections and cast doubt on our voting process. It is evil.
There's no room for it to be claimed that 2020 was stolen. There never was, but 3 years later, there's overwhelming evidence it was fair. That hasn't stopped it being a major part of the GOP platform.
Politics
Top