US Politics, March 2024: The house of illuminati will NOT be holding any other event in the foreseeable future.

in South Florida the only party that endorses gay marriages, supports trans care and counseling, has called for executive action and legislation to give women total abortion access is the Democratic Party -- that at least gives lip service to the potential of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is the Democratic Party, therefore it represents this constituent's interests. Its position on Israel continues to be shitty and grievous, but I care more about the issues I mentioned in the previous sentence.

I cannot conceive of not voting against a criminal would-be dictator. To me, that is also a question of conscience. But, ymmv.

idk I seem to remember a lot of people insisting that if progressives banded together to deny Hillary the presidency then we'd get a true progressive next time. and our reward was Joe Biden. I mean there are ways to bring about real progressive change in this country, it's happened before, but it doesn't start from the top down. everyone's free to do what they want but yea it drives me nuts when people really passionate about say climate stuff abstain from voting because one guy isn't doing enough, when the other is openly hostile to the idea of renewable energy and literally pulled us out of the accord which most scientists feel is our last chance to save the planet. I get that both choices 'suck' but that's just living under capitalism. I guess if Trump wins at least you might not have to worry about having to make such difficult choices in the future!

The reward was a Supreme Court packed with right-wing religious fanatics with lifetime tenure.

I mean look at this the other way, why 'punish' the left for not being progressive enough rather than the right for being a party of lunatics and idiots who prop up criminals and Nazis? at the end of the day both parties get a say, both will be in and out of power, why insist the Overton window keeps shifting to the right?

here's the other sad fact: the majority of the country isn't progressive.

xp Being a party of lunatics and idiots appears to be working for them atm.

most of the country is somewhere in the middle, tilting toward the left, but not super left. the way to address this is at the grassroots and social level, not sitting out an election where a fucking dictator has a non zero chance of winning.

xp Being a party of lunatics and idiots appears to be working for them atm.

― immodesty blaise (jimbeaux), Monday, March 4, 2024 11:14 AM (one minute ago) bookmarkflaglink

I mean not really, they've underperformed in every election since Trump won. had 'traditional' factors applied the GOP probably could've turned this into a full-on fascist nation by now

Sure, but they control the House and (more importantly) the Supreme Court. They also appear to get to set the terms of the narrative.

In a sane world, they would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Trump and the GOP have lost pr underperformed in every election since 2016. They may likely lose the House in November (and us the Senate).

With the internet there are ni dustbins.

*no

Jesus fucking Christ pic.twitter.com/bkBjPD2DYZ

— ettingermentum🥥🌴 (@ettingermentum) March 4, 2024

Voting is not praying. It is a utilitarian calculation based on maximum localized benefit.

otm imo.

I think people of any/all ideological stripes can be far too precious about their votes, like it's some holy act. It's just a tool to use in a deeply flawed system. It can signify in your mind whatever you want it to, from full endorsement of a person and their platform to "Well, they're 22 percent better than the other guy," to just "Fuck THAT guy." But in practical terms, all that matters is the numbers that result. Intentions in either voting or not voting are entirely beside the point and are not registered anywhere.

sp

taking sides: thinking larry summers is a great guy to call for advice, or heavily respecting david brooks

*xp

Trump and the GOP have lost pr underperformed in every election since 2016. They may likely lose the House in November (and us the Senate).

Alfred, for a Britisher following along across the atlantic, which is more useful to have - the house or the senate?

LADY BRACKNELL. [Sternly.] Both, if necessary

In all seriousness, you need both.

Did Obama have both at one point?

for his first two years in office

and to be clear a veto-proof majority in the Senate for months

biggest squandered opportunity of my lifetime

the way to address this is at the grassroots and social level

Just a note that as I've mentioned before on here, I do volunteer work for unhoused advocacy/food rights orgs, environmental orgs, as well as prison abolition orgs. I vote on local and state matters, every election. I live in what is recently the bluest congressional district in the entire United States, and one which has regularly been in the top 10 in that regard.

None of these things will change the fact that our tax dollars are funding a genocide that is on full view for the entire world to see, and that the one person in our government who could do anything about it keeps bypassing congressional approval to send more armaments to kill Palestinian civilians. If Joe Biden stopped this— and he could!— then I would vote for him. I was planning on doing so, albeit unhappily because voting for president is always an unhappy exercise, before the current conflict.

You disapprove of this stance? Fine. But I am not the one who can change what is happening— that's on Joe Biden.

and to be clear a veto-proof majority in the Senate for months

filibuster-proof (for 178 days)

does the genocide stop once the GOP retakes control?

zients is a disaster

Wish Ron Klain was still the president

You disapprove of this stance? Fine. But I am not the one who can change what is happening— that's on Joe Biden.

This is fair, and probably many of us have individual red-line issues that by themselves can make it hard to pull that lever.

The one thing that I think is important is to put all this stuff in political rather than strictly moral context. Let's say Biden acted on Gaza in a way that you personally could support and thereby win your vote. What if — and I'm not asserting this, just making it a hypothetical — whatever action is necessary to get your vote and the votes of others like you was simultaneously politically harmful to him in such a way that he would lose more votes than he gains? And therefore also potentially the election? Worth it?

This is the problem I think with investing too much moral hope or passion at the presidential level. You've got two candidates vying to represent the whole country. I accept that there are some things that would make me really like a candidate that could also make them unelectable. Do I want them to do them anyway? Not necessarily! I care more about The Bad Guys having less power to affect my life and the lives of those around me than I do about moral/principled stands by losing candidates.

But obv ymmv

(And by calling one side The Bad Guys, I don't mean to imply that the other side is The Good Guys. I will settle for The Less Bad Guys.)

The one thing that I think is important is to put all this stuff in political rather than strictly moral context. Let's say Biden acted on Gaza in a way that you personally could support and thereby win your vote. What if — and I'm not asserting this, just making it a hypothetical — whatever action is necessary to get your vote and the votes of others like you was simultaneously politically harmful to him in such a way that he would lose more votes than he gains? And therefore also potentially the election? Worth it?

Yes, but I don't think this is what would happen— just as people will vote for him while he's aiding and abetting genocide, they will vote for him when he isn't doing so, and he will probably *gain* a number of voters, too.

question for those who disapprove of biden's ongoing, blind support of genocide, but are voting for him because not voting for biden is essentially a vote for trump (note -- i may fall into this camp):

how should everyday people like you or me exert pressure on biden and nearly all democratic senators to stop supporting genocide? is there anything more persuasive than "we won't vote for you"? what is the correct way to try to stop support for genocide while still voting for the person who enables it?

because unless i'm mistaken, democrats are counting on people like us to vote for them despite their support for genocide, which i believe means we have zero leverage in their thinking on it

Local action, local candidates. If you're in a safely blue district, organize for or at least vote for the most progressive candidates you can find for state legislature and Congress. That's where you're more likely to get those voices willing and able to speak up.

well the assumption there is that if the Dems start *losing* elections, they'll start changing their positions on these sorts of issues...which we clearly can see has never really happened

If candidates aren't losing elections on issues, then not enough people care about those issues, so that's where the work has to start.

So much of electoral politics is the end point of social/political movements. It's only very recently that, say, base-level LGBTQ rights have become a pretty standard expected position for Democratic candidates. That wasn't true even 10 years ago. That's not because we got a bunch of new bold Democrats, it's because the culture changed.

well the assumption there is that if the Dems start *losing* elections, they'll start changing their positions on these sorts of issues

i'm not sure that is the assumption - ideally democratic politicians would listen to their constituents in real time, feel the pressure of declining support among their base (and maybe a tinge of complicity in a morally bankrupt conflict) and change their positions *before* they lose elections

I guess part of it for me is also... I just don't see how US backing of the genocide would lessen under Trump. Lots of other things would definitely get worse and it's not like Trump would just magically turn on Netanyahu if he wins.

i am definitely not a person who...wants the word? chatgpt, help me computer god. "revolutionary extremist?" lol? anyway, i am not a person who actively hopes for the defeat of the lone major political party in the u.s. that is not made up of white evangelical fascists, in order to accelerate the dawn of the new future society which is going to be so much better. i am waaaaaay too pessimistic for that. this shitty society we're in right now is likely to be the best that we or any of the next several generations have.

so no, i'm not actually asking about the utility of people withholding their vote in order to make the democrats lose and teach them a lesson, i'm talking about a more democratic idea of political leaders listening to people and their own conscience at the same time

On Israel in particular, what we're seeing now from squishy libs is exactly what AIPAC and others have been building for years, decades. There is barely an elected official of either party at just about any level who hasn't been offered a trip to Israel, this has been cultivated and invested in over a long period of time, specifically so American politicians will mostly think favorably of Israel and not ask too many questions about it.

So we're not just up against Joe Biden's personal view or wishes (whatever those may be), we're up against an entrenched and constantly reinforced idea that in American politics, a certain level of default support for Israel is just automatic — not just for moral reasons, but because it's good politics. The Democratic establishment surely believes that at this point as much as the Republican establishment, and so far they don't have any reason not to.

There's also money:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/10/congress-member-pro-israel-donations-military-support

And on Biden's lifelong commitment to the Zionist project:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/i-am-zionist-how-joe-bidens-lifelong-bond-with-israel-shapes-war-policy-2023-10-21/#:~:text=Entering%20national%20politics%20in%201973,vice%20president%20and%20finally%20president.

well again, that happening would have to start with the humiliating defeat of the Republican party, since they're the party who has effectively said "fuck it" wholesale to pretty much all political issues and made the entire party platform just "Make America Great Again". this is the party that ran Dr. Oz and an obviously brain-damaged Herschel Walker, this is the party who has thrown all their support behind a reality show star who committed nearly 100 felonies in broad daylight (and is also a confirmed sexpest), this is the party that basically passes zero bills when they do have power, and in fact will torpedo stuff solely so they can campaign on it later. if any meaningful change is gonna happen it needs to start by getting these unserious assholes out of office for good.

xp tipsy

otm - also, although democratic voters have shifted a bit away from supporting israel, support for the palestinians is still pretty much a wash with israel. and the majority of democratic voters still "don't take a side"

https://i.imgur.com/7WnbJ3l.png

https://i.imgur.com/lJyqpMO.png

(oh jeez, those charts only go up to pre-Oct 7. i was reading this article from just the other day so i assumed it was with updated polling post-Oct 7)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/29/palestine-democrat-support-election-voters-israel/

(anyway please ignore)

The polls have definitely shown some shifts because of the atrocities in Gaza — I believe that same Chicago Council polled showed a total of 53 percent of respondents said that U.S. military aid to Israel should not be used against Palestinians.

So one way to look at what's going on is that the outcry both here and abroad IS making a difference. I think you wouldn't have had Harris' statement yesterday without it. I think a lot of Americans have misgivings. But also, my guess is that even for that 53%, this is not a single-issue vote/won't vote thing. For nervous Dems in close races, there's still going to be a strong perception that there's a lot more risk in November of being perceived as "antisemitic" (which everyone's against) than "pro-genocide" (which many people don't think is really what's going on).

There's a very good profile of Biden in the latest New Yorker.

how should everyday people like you or me exert pressure on biden and nearly all democratic senators to stop supporting genocide? is there anything more persuasive than "we won't vote for you"? what is the correct way to try to stop support for genocide while still voting for the person who enables it?

― z_tbd, Monday, March 4, 2024 1:08 PM

I work locally to get as many progressive candidates as possible. Some of the candidates give me heartburn. But my friends in Orlando were proud they got a candidate as far-left-for-Florida as Maxwell Frost. Someone like him would be ideal in Miami-Dade; unfortunately, our club includes Everyone Not a Fascist, which means we have members who support the genocide against Palestinians. It also means I head from a moron who thinks Biden's so weak on Israel i.e. kissing Bibi's ass, that she's thinking voting for...Nikki Haley.

We got into a shouting match last month. We're not talking. This is to give you an idea about herding these cats.