I hope @Hichkas is safe and well, in light of current events in Iran.
12 Likes
By enough you mean a simple majority in the House but also 60+ in the Senate. 60 is such a tall order, but we must keep the faith!
1 Like
It’s a year away but let’s take a gander at this election:
This Young Sheldon-Christian Slater-Eddie Redmayne hybrid is Shadrack Tucker White (yes, that’s his actual name), and he’s the “best” of the two currently declared candidates.
He studied at Harvard and Oxford, investigated the largest public fraud scheme in state history, and based a government efficiency program after Democrat Rob Sand’s similar program. Meanwhile Andy Gipson’s a homophobic anti-choice culture war asshole who tried to kill a bill that would remove domestic violence as grounds for divorce.
Unfortunately, only Gipson bothered to put up a website. Maybe White will start one up after he changes his first name to something less dumb than Shad, like David or Joseph or Walter.
Also, White’s wife was born to Indian immigrants just like Usha Vance, I hope that ain’t a factor for the good folks in Mississippi, but that may give Gipson an edge over him.
That said, White is still a Trump supporter who supports the atrocities in Minnesota, so screw him, goes without saying I hope Brandon Presley or another Democrat wins. And speaking of Trump, this is him making enemies in his latest dementia ramble:
I’m not sure if Hawley’s lucky or unlucky that he doesn’t have Trump over his shoulder in his upcoming 2030 Senate re-election.
Onto another election: the UN, this year. These are the four declared candidates. Bachelet’s the eldest of them and survived Pinochet, and Grossi’s endorsed by Italy, Argentina, and Paraguay, that’s about all I know.
3 Likes
Do you have a good way to draw the line that doesn’t boil down to “I didn’t intend…” because a major problem is that intentions are not impact, and the intentions don’t really matter to those who were impacted.
People who are suffering from ICE doing gestapo shit in their neighbourhood, or looking for the remains of their life in war-torn wreckage etc really don’t care if the person who voted in the Republicans only wanted them to enact “moderate” policies.
Also, historically a reason why the US was so late to joining World War 2 was that huge institutions in the US that considered themselves “moderate” or “apolitical” (including the FBI) were actively trying to prevent people from hating Nazis. Jack L. Warner got an FBI file for being vocally anti-Nazi and wanting to make Casablanca (1942) before the US joined the war.
Dropping in with a nebulous “it’s not fair implicate everyone” while people are literally dying and literally being shot in the streets, particularly when you don’t have a plan how to explain the distinctions or who the “innocent” group are innocent is deprioritizing the victims for the feelings of people who are, largely, still benefiting from a lot of this.
The apparatus of all this terror etc is The US Republican Party. It has, for a long time, being the international bastion of “conservative” thought and has used that to justify pretty much all the decisions its made along the way.
This is not a “don’t blame everyone in a red state” scenario, this is a outcome of the ideology scenario.
3 Likes
My argument is against using authoritarian measures such as abolishing a political party, with the premise that every one of its voters are treasonous murderers. It creates a ‘them vs us’ mentality that people like the current president used to get into power.
2 Likes
That mentality was already created, without any input from opposing parties. It was created because of the party that needs to be abolished. Again, at this point, it is no longer a political party, it is no longer simply a matter of differing views. Being part of the party that is actively cheering on the murder of innocents, or supporting it while it does so, makes one culpable by association, because such people are saying they are ok enough with it to keep supporting those who do it. If not all of them are like that, then they need to leave the party and no longer support it. If the party should be disbanded and abolished, they can form or join others.
2 Likes
I agree with this because that’s the democratic way. The voter’s choice. The current administration is the worst I’ve seen in the US and it should be uprooted, but not at the expense of democracy
2 Likes
Fuck Trump, fuck Vance, and fuck Noem for making me agree with Tucker Carlson for once.
Who knew that in 2026 I’ll be saying “why can’t Republicans at least act as decent as Tucker Carlson?“
This terrible crisis management strategy is intentional, they’re purposely doing everything they can to fan the flames and make everyone more angry and scared, so they could kill more.
They’re like a child who needs to have the last word, who needs to win even when they clearly lost. They could easily throw the officer under the bus, apologise and at least just shut up until it goes away, but no, they lie, they smear a murder victim and her family, and they verbally abuse Democrats and the media. I’ve never seen a country so dedicated to maliciously abusing its own people.
The Republican Party’s so rotten not one single politician are even fazed by an American citizen’s murder, the entire party is helping a man get away with murdering an innocent woman. That’s why I know the party can’t be saved, and isn’t worth saving.
This is bigger than Jan 6. At least then nobody was directly murdered but Babbitt, and at least then most Republican Senators initially condemned it. This is a flat out recorded murder.
And speaking on January 6th, Republicans really have the fucking gall to cry injustice that the rioters faced prison. The Republican Party should have been abolished in 2021 and anyone who voted to acquit Trump expelled from Congress. Would Sanders have had the balls to do that if he were president instead? Would Klobuchar?
Until the Republican Party is gone, until there’s not a single Republican in the House or Senate, the US Government should never be trusted ever again.
Here’s discussions with the VP to lighten the mood.
EDIT: in lighter news, Arkansas Senate candidate Hallie Shoffner finally created an Issues page. I hope she sends Tom Cotton back to the cattle farm.
1 Like
And then you wanted to broaden it to all the conservatives of the world when it was pointed out that abolishment and barring officials from election/authority was in fact the rational response to the Nazi Party in Germany.
The whole “voted for” is absurd for both sides to discuss since voting is anonymous so there’s not really anything more to say for that. It’s just a distraction to try to generate innocent victims out of thin air and for people to engage in some sort of imaginary divine justice fantasy.
Essentially what you are advocating that authoritarians and their direct supporters should not face consequences because that would be mean.
As pointed out, repeatedly, that is the initial stance of authoritarianism and fascism. Specifically they require there to always ben an enemy because they are defined by their us vs them ideology. They cannot coexist with others because of that.
So if you want to advocate that preventing them from taking power is unacceptable, and broaden it out to being an attack on everyone who has had a conservative stance is under attack, what you’re advocating for is unopposed fascism.
So again, what is your alternative?
2 Likes
Speaking of women who unfortunately died instead of Donald Trump, Tatiana Schlossberg’s funeral was held recently. The GOAT Biden, John Kerry, Michael Bloomberg, Ed Markey, Seth Myers, David Letterman and David Axelrod attended, along with Tatiana’s parents, siblings, and extended family.
That’s Caroline Kennedy and her granddaughter Josephine, Tatiana’s girl.
And this is Joe Kennedy III, nephew of RFK Jr.
RFK Jr. didn’t come, apparently the fam told him he’s a fucking disgrace and the only time they want to see his ugly face again is in a newspaper obituary.
1 Like
“One" of the following? Purge the entire cabinet and every other Trump appointee.
“Bury [their] memory, Sinclair. Bury it, and salt the earth.”
3 Likes
I support the system of democracy
Then that means that when something fundamentally threatens the existence of that democracy, as the current iteration of American “conservatism” now does in the embodiment of the Republican Party, it must be expunged from society or that democracy will cease to exist. Right now, they are openly trying to destroy democracy, by controlling elections, consolidating power, and with lobbyists and tech-bro oligarchs buying representatives, as well as putting extremists in charge of the courts to legitimize it all. It’s no longer even a pretense; they want democracy gone and the control in their hands, permanently. As such, if our democracy is to continue existing, the Republican Party no longer can. If we allow it to continue to do so in the name of democracy, we will no longer even have that democracy at all.
1 Like
In Germany parties can be banned if they act against our basic law. It requires the party to both desire and to some extend be able to do that. It takes quite some years of observing to recognize a party as such. It is also a possibility for the German AfD but not in the very near future as things are currently.
So if you are uncomfortable with banning one of the big two, you can still speak up for starting such a process. It is not anti-democratic if you make use of what the law offers to protect the democracy.
I don’t know if something like that exists for the US too, but I imagine given how much they fought communists back in the day there surely are some fancy sledge hammers in the legal cupboards.
What would the US without the republican party looks like? What are the other right-wing parties like that would profit? Even more extreme? Also Vance could candidate without being in a party, right? He might attract more voters who vote for him out of principle as a revenge to whoever-they-blame to ban the Reps.
I don’t like to bring in some pragmatism into this but I cannot help and at least want some outlook on if the “right thing to do” is leading to actual improvements and not the opposite.
In Germany we needed more than just banning the NSDAP at the end of the war to get a working system again. Though of course we were no democracy anymore after the Enabling Act of 1933 so that had to be fixed. Something the US did not went through so far.
For the record, I would not go as far as saying the Republicans are just as the Nazis as long they did not end democracy and are not constructing concentration camps. But the Nazis also started somewhere, and that of course offers you plenty red flags you can check for at another party of today. You don’t want to get to the point where a party did prove to be like the Nazis.
Ironically, given the US sticks to the winner-takes-it-all principle, such a ban may not have any effect at all if the democrats were stronger at the polls. It does not matter if they win with 55% or 95% in the absence of the Republicans. But for some reason they do badly even next to Trump in the public opinion.
4 Likes
This is an inherently meaningless statement at the best of times, but particularly meaningless in this context because “democracy” is a very broad concept (not a system) which has generally been agreed to have flaws, particularly given the varying models and discussion of limitations.
For example, there’s fairly reasonable arguments that the US system has never been democratic, and has shifted entirely away from even the charade of it in various areas.
- Large numbers of citizens have always been prohibited from voting - whether this was due to being black, or having a criminal record
- That factors like criminal records can influence the voting, and gerrymandering, mean that those in power effectively get to fence out opposition in many situations
- The challenges to getting elected mean that business interests, including overseas interests, will always have ability to influence outcomes than citizens
- Even if you get a representative elected, the sale of the politics means they will be effectively unable to use their authority - they need to belong to a party or group, which means they need to compromise to get support
- Even if you do get it through there are arbitrary rules which have arbitrary requirements that were set by past politicians, these rules are interpreted by a panel of people who are appointed for life by past presidents (The Constitution).
But even if we did agree that the system is democratic, that still doesn’t address what do you do when a party undermines that from within.
Does supporting the system of democracy support this anti-democratic behaviour by elected officials? In which case, where do you draw the line? Do you support “democracy” when say there’s a candidate who should probably have been excluded from being eligible for election due to being a criminal and participating in treasonous interference with the electoral process - but didn’t due to procedural issues? Do you support “democracy” when the current administration ignores laws, rules etc and is able to because the elected president fires anyone who talks about the rules to them? Do you support democracy when the current administration is blatantly breaching laws, undermining processes and sabotaging the mechanisms of it?
So does your supporting the system of democracy mean you unconditionally support fascism as long as it was voted for in some vague capacity?
Because there’s also an argument that could be made that the US system, and this is the system that has been put forward by many Republicans, is that when the people generally feel the system is being opposed - they should just take up arms and start killing those they disagree with. This is generally considered bad by the rest of the world, as it’s not so much democracy as “might makes right” anarchy - but it has been a proposed element of the system by the party in charge.
Does supporting the system of democracy mean supporting vigilantism against Trump appointees? Are you saying you support random people shooting everyone from Trump himself to JD Vance to Big Balls to every single member of ICE in the street and leaving their body to rot as warning to others? Because that seems a lot more extreme than dissolving the Republican party.
Again you haven’t really given any alternative - you’ve just made a vague statement. That’s not contributing to the conversation, and is quite dismissive of people who are suffering under the current events. I must strongly recommend you not do that - here or anywhere.
Arguably the Democrats have been setting up concentration camps too, ICE was supported and continued to operate throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, as well as Guantanamo Bay.
But there’s also the general issue that when the Nazis did come to power they only had minority support, but a lot of general indifference to them until they started running out of Germans to blame for the problems and losing the wars. They also operated by abusing the process and claiming it was the will of the people.
1 Like
The Democrats are not at all blameless, and while they are closer to the idea of “the good guys” than the Republicans are - insofar as the concepts of good guys and bad guys is applicable - they are still not actually the good guys, and their spinelessness and unwillingness to act when they should is arguably just as responsible for our current situation as any overt actions taken by the Republicans.
The difference is, the Democrats agree and disagree across a wider spectrum of things that are both good and bad for the people and are willing to hear out, debate, negotiate, and listen to the input of their constituents in order to try to find the best compromise for everyone involved. If they wish to enact policy that is not good for the people, other members of their party try to come up with alternatives with the intention of removing and replacing the bad policy as soon as they can for the benefit of those they represent.
The Republicans have not, from the Reagan era until the Trump era, enacted any policy of any sort that benefits the people and instead only focuses on expanding and consolidating the wealth of their donors and corporations, with no intention of ever changing it beyond giving even more to their owners through tax cuts and other Trickle-Down Economics policies. Since the Trump era, they have begun enacting new policies: culture-war policies that further disenfranchise vulnerable and marginalized people, as well as expanding and protecting the power of the executive branch (but only when their own members, particularly Trump, are the ones running it). Again, none of these benefit any body in any way other than them and their donors to gain more wealth and power.
So while neither party is blameless, one has the capacity for empathy and change, the other has only the capacity to do evil, and have done nothing but for the last 45 fucking years, without exception.
There was a time in my life, ~25 years ago, when I agreed with them, and in my first act of voting, voted for them. Knowing what I’ve come to learn over the years since then, I look back upon that pathetic young man with shame, distain, and condemnation, ever wondering why I was able to eventually see the truth of that party’s evil so clearly and change my path away from it, while others simply cannot see or understand how wrong it is, and continue to embrace it.
Apparently Greenland is next but what was once inconceivable and pure fiction for reserved the Marvel universe sits at the forefront of my mind: civil war in the United States? Please tell me why that can’t happen, I’ll gladly take anything, but all I see is two big blocks of people, armed to the teeth, that consider each other evil incarnate and refuse to talk with one another. What happens when ICE and one of the Democtratic governors or mayors public security units that they also have at their disposal clash, for example?
Obviously nobody can see the future, but the US currently has a few obstacles to Civil War.
The first is geography, while there are Red States and Blue States, there is no clear border divide like there was with The Union and the Confederacy, and also no clear political grouping. Gerrymandering means there’s areas, for example, where there is consistently a majority of Democrat voters or non-voters, which come up Republican.
Even Republican areas are not neatly aligned, with some being in favour, some being pissed off, etc. Many of them are divided on what areas are “problem” areas - if only because they have cousins in Philadelphia, but no relatives in California etc.
For them to get to civil war, they’d have to have clearer sides. Also while its not inaccurate to compare ICE to the Gestapo at this point, they’re not exactly organized or effective - having been foiled by people simple following them around with speakerphones, and despite being issued full body armour etc fled areas where they were concerned people might fight back.
That and the varying the degrees of collaboration by Democrats, business interests, overseas interests are part of why there’s not really a prescribed solution.
1 Like
As a Dane, I’m neither concerned or convinced that Trump will invade an ally. Even if he threatens time and time again. As I see it’s a tactic, where we are more likely to give way to more “reasonable” demands, compared to an invasion of an ally nation. It’s not the first time Trump tried to strong arm others.
Luckily a lot of Republicans in congress have begun to criticise his actions. There is a time after Trump and there are plenty of ambitious politicians in both parties.
That said I wish this insane rhetoric wasn’t a reality.
2 Likes
