A vote for neoliberals is a vote to not have fascism for four more years.
That's an extremely hard case to make at this point though when the "not" fascist guy is funding a genocide and refusing to entertain the measures we'd need to take to actually take the fight to the fascists (ex. Championing an effort to pack the supreme court). Neoliberals are not truly acting like democracy is on the line, they say it a lot but it's not what their actions communicate, which makes it difficult to believe they'd ever stop obstructing progress.
Neoliberals don't stop or stall fascists by getting into power -- they just soft sell it and give the general public time to acclimate to the slipping of the Overton window. They do this in service of corporate interests rather than theocracy the way the far-right does but it ends us up in the same place.
If the plan is to try and encourage the Democrats to have primaries that actually have the power to move the party left, now is not the time to withhold a vote in protest as there’s a good chance that even if it did convince them, there’d never be another election that wasn’t rigged so they’d lose it no matter how popular they were.
Now is the time that the Democratic establishment chooses to try to strong arm the left into voting for them, they do this every election; claim the sky is falling and that we must vote for them or else. So I guess my view is, if they have assessed that they can risk playing a game of chicken, so can voters.
I understand Project 2025 and its seriousness, but that problem is going to be there every election from here until such a time that the GOP dissolves. I'm skeptical that 4 years will allow them to achieve everything they want to without sweeping the house and senate too. The president cannot legally be crowned king, and if they try to do that perhaps that is what it will take to actually radicalize the self-sedated upper middle-class liberals and political fence-sitters.
I'm sick of defensive leadership, and any offensive needs to start with attacking the Democratic structure that's making the party so ineffectual and complicit. More time is not enough in my opinion, people were talking about GOP plans to capture the supreme court as far back as Bush Jr. and giving Democrats wins achieved nothing. They need to be forced to take it seriously and I just don't see that happening without some pain (for them and, unfortunately, us).
Yerp, it just reinforces him looking inflexible and old, committed more to some personal fantasy than what's actually best for the country in reality.
So this happened under Obama. People voted blue no matter who, gave Dems a super majority and they used it to pass a GOP-crafted bill that forced people to pay for useless private insurance.
The party itself needs to change and the types of candidates that the establishment supports needs to change. That doesn't happen when they can do their pied piper thing and keep winning. And no "just one last hit" won't let them overcome the addiction to corporate conservativism.
Yes, Hillary and the DNC allowed Trump to win by ignoring their base and chasing imaginary "swing" voters. And now they're doing it again.
People do understand that concept, but it's literally what Democrats have been doing for the past 40 years and it has put us right here where we are right now. The "lesser of two evils" thing just has no propellant left, no one is buying that line anymore. Neoliberalism needs to go before Democrats can start winning again.
You need to understand that people have been saying "just put the neolibs in power again and we'll work to improve things" every election cycle, and now we are closer to fascism than we've literally ever been. You at least understand why people see that strategy as a failure, right? Like, you understand why no one believes it anymore?
Heels-dug-in defiance to the idea is not reassuring.
No ones moving goal posts. Give a ballpark of how many immigrants were involved in those 122 attacks.
You're making the argument that brown immigrants are more dangerous than Europeans and you're then trying to exclude all types of violent crime except that labeled terror attacks to obfuscate the reality that immigrants are statistically no more dangerous than Europeans themselves. It's dishonest.
Even in terms of terrorism, the majority has historically been committed by domestic groups (ex. nationalists, political extremists, separatists etc.), not immigrants. Again, this is very similar to my own country where domestic terrorism is actually the greater threat than that from immigrants.
So, even if we assume those 122 attacks were committed by immigrants, how does that compare to violent crimes committed by Europeans themselves? 122 incidents over 9 years is remarkably low for a single demographic. How many bad actors is that per event? How many immigrants are there total and how many committed these crimes?
It's racist fear mongering.
The rich making money off immigration isn't an issue with the immigrants, it's that we don't force companies to pay all their workers the same wage, regardless of status. That's a regulatory problem, not an immigration problem.
Because people that tell us low wages (not GDP increase but working class wages for locals), high house prices, and other things people mention like losing culture and crime increasing isn’t an issue. So what would it take for it to be an issue.
None of this is related to immigration. Immigrants aren't raising housing prices. With crime you have to actually prove that that's immigrants committing more crimes than Europeans and what kind of crime. They call brown immigrants criminals and rapists here too, and it's simply not true, they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens.
You have to understand that this is a pattern we see over, and over throughout history; when fascists want to seize control they blame immigrants for all of socieyies woes. And they do so only with rhetoric or twisted facts, not the truth.
This is what happens when you try to substitute undecided voters for your progressive base. It's always been a dumb, high-risk strategy, but it's the only way neoliberals can put off being phased out.
That's not pudding on his fingers this time.
Well, yeah, obviously you have to purge the anti-revolutionaries. If someone doesn't want to be under communism they have to be eliminated, naturally.
Yeah, I know all about that, they use the " brown immigrants are terrorists" in my country too in order to exploit people's latent racism.
To have a point you'd have to compare those instances to violence by Europeans against eachother, by being selective you're feeding a narrative that brown immigrants are more violent than Europeans. That's already been demonstrated to be false. You're being manipulated by fascists.
Whipping up fear about brown immigrants is what the right does when there is no wedge issue.
I like how the hero is not just a reluctant hero in that one but kind of a parasitic man-baby lol.
Court packing is the solution. It's been suggested that the number of justices be increased to something like 20-30 (similar to the next lowest court is right now) and then judges be rotated out to other federal positions every few years (effectively a term limit in the SC itself).
This achieves two things 1) It allows for each administration to make appointments to the court as a routine matter, making it difficult to capture the court for generations at a time 2) the amount of judges waters down the influence of the extremist dipshits. We know this works because, as we saw in the past, even lunatics like Alito were kept in check when the court was not majority far-right.
I'd rather they let the experts quickly determine how much lead is unsafe in drinking water than to have to constantly go to court to prove to a judge not just that lead is unsafe in drinking water, but to convince the judge that poisoning people is bad and should be stopped.
Honestly this kind of makes me think more seriously of finding a way to leave this country. The consequences of this shit can't be overstated really. It effectively ends all regulatory bodies' ability to regulate.
I think in regards specifically to the question of resolution, that anti-fingerprint setting will start your browser at a smaller, set resolution. The problem is nothing prevents you from just expanding the window, so it's not a very strong solution in that aspect.
The part where Lot ("the only righteous man in Sodom and Gemorrah") gets drunk and sleeps with his daughters would be a good one I think.