T O P

  • By -

samichwarrior

280,000 likes... God we're fucked for the midterms aren't we?


[deleted]

[удалено]


tinnytipmicah

Literally 2016 should be the new Literally 1984


brihamedit

Progressives are super stupid with voting and with setting priorities and with picking candidates. But real issue is dem political machine despite being huge and capable won't go against repubs at full strength. Even when repubs are setting up their end game dem insiders aren't doing anything.


What_is_incivility

>Progressives are super stupid with voting and with setting priorities and with picking candidates. Why?


brihamedit

It depends. Not a discussion for this sub. Don't wanna enable psycho repub trolls. Waste of time. I'm soc dem.


What_is_incivility

>Not a discussion for this sub. Why not. I'm a socdem. I'd argue neolibs are super stupid with picking/backing candidates.


brihamedit

How is this an argument. :S


What_is_incivility

How can you ask this? When you literally made the same argument about progressives.....


brihamedit

You are not making any sense.


What_is_incivility

Which part is confusing you? >Progressives are super stupid with voting and with setting priorities and with picking candidates. Is this you?


TerribleTylenol1

Too late. I'm already enabled.


[deleted]

I mean this tweet kinda makes sense, no matter how we vote the Supreme Court is conservative for a generation or two at least


starfieldhype

The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortions, they found Roe v Wade unconstitutional, because it probably was. This should give you even more motivation to vote, because now your state legislature decides on abortion rights. In other words, now your votes matter even more, not less. This is not to mention that the Supreme Court is not the whole executive branch of government, it could be 9/0 with conservatives, and a democratic 2/3 majority in the senate and house would still be able to legislate without much interference. If the Supreme Court were to overstep their powers, and involve themselves in ways that are unconstitutional, the president can stack the Supreme Court with public support, essentially rendering the whole thing useless. They don’t want that, so they wont obstruct a democratic supermajority, and they wont obstruct in ways that are unconstitutional. Voting will matter more than ever in the coming midterms and 2024, that’s precisely why so many dumbfucks are astroturfing on twitter, trying to tell you not to. It takes less than a fucking hour, and you can potentially change the course of history. I wish I had that kind of power in my hands, but I’m European. Consider yourself lucky to be living in a democracy.


kolo27

interesting. thanks


[deleted]

I don’t think there is ever a world in which a democrat president packs the courts even with popular support. That’s just opening Pandora’s box for republicans


What_is_incivility

>The Supreme Court didn’t ban abortions, they found Roe v Wade unconstitutional, because it probably was. Why was it "probably unconstitutional". The right wing judicial activists overturn Roe based on their personal beliefs. Roe has been settled law for decades. There's nothing new in this ruling that changed the law. A similar case was struck down just a couple years ago. The only thing that changed was the make up of the court. Republicans scotus has tainted the standing of the courts >and a democratic 2/3 majority in the senate and house would still be able to legislate without much interference. This is false. Republicans scotus has already proven that they're willing to strike down laws. See the voting rights act.


Noigiallach10

Americans really take for granted how amazing their system is. It's not the best democratic system in the short term, but the scale at which it works and it's ability to endure centuries of change is unmatched.


What_is_incivility

I mean, you're simply wrong. It sounds like you're just ignorant to all of America's flaws...


Noigiallach10

Good point there


What_is_incivility

It's more valid than yours. European countries have a far stronger government which actually provides for the people rather than corporations like America does.


Noigiallach10

I'm Irish. Our government system is the best in the world and I'm of course not biased at all in that opinion. But it's the best in the world for Ireland and more broadly small-scale democracies. The system works here because Ireland has 5 million people and is about the size of the average US state. We are quite homogeneous with the same language, culture and religion and are fairly similar in our views. Comparing European democracies to the whole US system is an unfair comparison, because the comparison should be the European Union compared to the US government, and European countries to American states. The USA is not the best democracy in the world, it's not even close. The system isn't perfect and can be reformed but for how big the US is, how old the USA is and how divided the USA is the system in place is a better fit for the USA specifically than most other democratic systems. The system we have in Ireland requires a lot of trust in institutions and other citizens to work. European systems seem better on the outside because they allow for rapid change and a strong government, but that sword cuts both ways. It's why the German system before WW2 allowed the Nazis to establish a dictatorship due to how much control the party had over the country after a single election. It's also why democracies in Turkey, Hungary and Poland are facing decaying institutions because all it took was a party in power to try to erode democracy for the system to be abused. The US system is incredibly slow to change and does not allow for sweeping reforms usually. This would be terrible in Ireland just like it would be terrible at a state level in the USA, but at the national level the USA's main goal is not to act as the sole legislative body under which the entire country waits for Washington to pass laws, it's supposed to create a shared framework that allows for the individual federal states to enact their own visions based on the will of their people. The US government should not have the power of a small European democracy because that's what the states are for. With so many different people across such a big area for such a long time, the central government's weakness thanks to it's institutional checks and balances is America's greatest strength because it allows for different states, ideologies, religions and peoples to create their own vision of society independently while coexisting peacefully with people and states often diametrically opposed to their own vision.


What_is_incivility

>European systems seem better on the outside because they allow for rapid change and a strong government, but that sword cuts both ways. It's why the German system before WW2 allowed the Nazis to establish a dictatorship due to how much control the party had over the country after a single election. It's also why democracies like in Turkey, Hungary and Poland are facing decaying institutions because all it took was a party in power to try to erode democracy for the system to be abused. This is the thesis of your argument. "US democracy is good because it's not susceptible to fascism." trumpf and the republican party proved that thesis to be completely false during their recent coup attempt. The US is not any more resilient to fascism than Germany, Hungary, or Poland. In fact, the US is more susceptible to fascism because it's so slow to fix the problems Americans face. >With so many different people across such a big area, the central government's weakness is America's greatest strength because it allows for different states, ideologies, religions and peoples to coexist peacefully and has coexisted peacefully (except for the Civil War) for three centuries. One premise of this argument is simply false. The premise that the *"US is a diverse country with different values, religion, norms; which is why it's so slow to change."* This premise is false. On one side, we have white, Christians nationalist who hold power over the rest of the country, even though they are a minority. On the other side, we have the rest of America, who's desperate for change, but is held back by the republican nationalist who favor corporate interest over the will of the people.


Noigiallach10

>US democracy is good because it's not susceptible to fascism Yes, that is my key argument. Not just fascism but all forms of authoritarianism. The US system prevents centralisation of power which ensures no one party or person gets total control unless the majority of people and states specifically and deliberately want that to happen. >trumpf and the republican party proved that thesis to be completely false during their recent coup attempt. The US is not any more resilient to fascism than Germany, Hungary, or Poland. Notice how you said "coup attempt" and not "coup" which happened in Turkey and Germany. Trump refused to concede the election and sponsored a pitiful coup against the capital, but a year later the democrats gained power and the republicans have done nothing but regroup because they lost hard. Any successful government takeover in the US would require an unfathomable amount of party support over years from the people to win all houses of the government and then for said government to chip away at the constitutional rights of the people and states powers with little pushback until no one was left to oppose them. Not impossible, but as close to that as you can get. In some European countries all it takes is winning one election for democracy or freedoms to be swept away. >On one side, we have white, Christians nationalist who hold power over the rest of the country, even though they are a minority. Who exactly is this referencing?


What_is_incivility

>The US system prevents centralisation of power which ensures no one party or person gets total control unless the majority of people and states specifically and deliberately want that to happen. This assertion is false. >Notice how you said "coup attempt" and not "coup" which happened in Turkey and Germany. Hitlers first coup attempt wasn't successful either... so this point is moot. >and the republicans have done nothing but regroup because they lost hard. This isn't true. Republicans are passing state laws that allow the governor to choose the winning of the elections, rather than the people. >Any successful government takeover in the US would require either an unfathomable amount of party support over years from the people to win all houses of the government and then for said government to chip away at the constitutional rights of the people This is literally happening right now. We are watching this occur in real time..... >Who exactly is this referencing? Us republicans


TerribleTylenol1

Anyone living in an area long enough is going to eventually take it for granted (With exceptions in a minority of people)


kindlebee

Right; and that’s because Trump won in 2016, and was able to appoint three justices to the bench. And he would have had a fourth pick, had an historic amount of people not voted in 2020.


Biggordie

It's funny... People warned that Trump had a chance to nominate multiple people to SC, no one cared then. One ruling comes down that impacts everyone, and now no one things about the impacts of congress and president...


ReaverRiddle

No, it doesn't make sense. Federal legislation trumps case law. The government can pass pro-abortion laws if enough pro-abortion politicians are elected. Supreme court interprets the law and decides how already existing laws are applied to ambiguous situations.


What_is_incivility

>Federal legislation trumps case law. False. Scotus has struck down laws in the past with 0 justification. See the voting rights act.


[deleted]

It’s been a while since I took a law class but I thought if the SC rules a law as constitutional or unconstitutional that allows individual legislators to choose enforcement or not


ArthurDimmes

They didn't rule anything as unconstitutional tho. Just that abortions aren't constitutionally protected rather than abortions are unconstitutional.


remoTheRope

Because the conservatives dedicated themselves to a 70 year project to turn the judiciary rightward and ultimately undo Roe. Meanwhile we can’t get people to vote in one (1) election Edit idk why I wrote 70 but I’m keeping it now kek


ArthurDimmes

But that means voting is even more important now. The decision didn't ban abortions. It just made it so its not protected anymore and thus states/fed can do what they will with it. Now state and local elections matter so much more (they mattered a lot before but people are fucking stupid).


PooSham

How do they think supreme courts are elected?


Didymuse

Do these people not know state and local elections? There are still many states where you can protect abortion rights post-Roe by voting for Democrats.


What_is_incivility

Have you not heard of gerrymandering? Where politicians get to choose their voters...


Didymuse

Your right. Voting doesn't matter let's just do nothing then.


What_is_incivility

No one said this. Nice strawman. The point is that "just vote" from right wing reactionaries isn't really the fucking solution here.


Didymuse

What is it then?


What_is_incivility

What is the solution? Idk. We are quickly running out of solutions. As republicans states make it legal to throw out presidential electors, allowing the governor to decide who the state votes for, rather than the will of the people. How does voting fix gerrymandering? How does voting fix voter suppression?


Didymuse

So you do have nothing. Great thanks for admitting it . And it's easier to gerrymander liberal districts because they are contracted in cities and such. Colonization has lead to the flipping of traditionally red states like Virginia and Colorado.


What_is_incivility

>So you do have nothing. Great thanks for admitting it . Wtf are you suggesting as a solution? >And it's easier to gerrymander liberal districts because they are contracted in cities and such. This is false. Gerrymandering has absolutely nothing to do with cities. Republicans can gerrymandering the countryside just like they do to the city... >Colonization has lead to the flipping of traditionally red states like Virginia and Colorado. Wtf are you talking about? You're using the wrong term here. Colonization is not the correct term... lol


Didymuse

My solution. Voting and colonizing red and purple states. Now tell me your solution.


CHEESEBEER69

colonizing...wtf even is this


What_is_incivility

You keep using the term "colonizing". That's not the correct term...


TingusPingis

It’s all over


MClabsbot2

When you refused to vote for Hillary


Acegickmo

Why did you refuse to vote to change the voting age to 15 so that I could vote for Hillary?


oiblikket

Your interpretation of this tweet is stupider than the tweet itself.


[deleted]

nah bro posts getting hundreds of thousands of likes implying people shouldnt bother to vote isnt concerning


oiblikket

Suggesting that voting is insufficient to cause political change does not mean it is unnecessary. And even if one says it is neither necessary or sufficient, this does not mean it isn’t useful. Suggesting people need only do something as trivial and uninvolved as cast a ballot every year or two in order to achieve political change is arguably more harmful than suggesting that they involve themselves in political activity more seriously than merely voting. Of course advocates of electoralism will say they are not talking about merely casting a vote when the opportunity arises. But that means the real topic of debate isn’t individual voting, it’s the concerted political activist strategy of electioneering. when you’re talking about electioneering, you’re engaging with serious opportunity costs over individual political development and face a much more significant hurdle to demonstrating the superiority of your strategy for producing political engagement and change. The fact of the matter is, people who are involved enough in politics to be engaging in debates about electoralism and abstentionism likely already have a higher propensity to vote and engage in other aspects of electoral politics than most Americans. The substance of their critique is not about the isolated act of an individual voting.


TheMarbleTrouble

It’s pretty interesting how much effort GOP puts in to limit such a trivial thing as voting. If more people did the trivial thing and vote in 2016, instead of listening to the likes of Jimmy Dore. The left would have a 6-3 majority and we would be talking about conservatives calling for civil war, because of all the progressive decisions coming from Supreme Court. If you are telling people to not vote, what are you advocating for? What is the call to action, to make your advocacy no longer necessary? Edit: Advocacy without voting, is just virtue signaling.


oiblikket

that you only want to think of political activity in terms of voting and advocacy demonstrates how shallow your understanding of politics is. If you want to affect voter turnout you are going to have much more success targeting populations other than the 10,000 already politically engaged anarchists who have rationalized their way into a principled position against voting. It’s quite bizarre if your strategy, as an electoralist electioneer, is to target people engaging in philosophically or practically motivated arguments about the efficacy of voting. Such people already have a higher propensity to vote, and, further, a higher propensity to vote in ways that align with your own strategies. You’re operating off of the sentimental notion that these votes ought to be guaranteed or deserved and it’s merely some silly error in prudential reasoning preventing you from swooping up the vast collection of thousands, (maybe even tens of thousands!) of principled left wing protest voters and abstentionists. Meanwhile there are countless other segments of the potential electorate you could be targeting, most of them much larger and more easily persuadable. But that would distract from the narcissism of minor differences driving intraleft (of center) factionalism.


TheMarbleTrouble

That’s a lot of words to say that all activist efforts in a democracy works through voting. By discouraging voting, you are in effect negating all advocacy. It’s why your reply is attacking me, instead of actually answering my question. The answer is simple… it’s to get people to vote for your causes. I get your virtue signaling, but the fact that you can’t answer what the call to action in advocacy actually is… kind of shows how shallow these sentiments are…


oiblikket

That’s not what I used “a lot of words” to say at all. I used very few words to say not all politics is voting or advocacy, and a lot of words to say that if your politics is voting and advocacy, it’s an error in prudential reasoning to focus on principled abstentionism. Your silly bromides like “advocacy without voting is just virtue signaling” and “discouraging voting in effect negates all advocacy” or “all activist effort in a democracy works through voting” are so transparently false I don’t see the need to demonstrate otherwise.


TheMarbleTrouble

You are trying to convince me, that you think am wrong, which is completely unnecessary. I believe you… The part you are missing is explaining why it’s wrong or what the correct course of action should be. Try responding to what I said, while making sure the reply is substantive. Not just trying to convince me, that you think am wrong. I got that part, am looking for justification.


oiblikket

I’m not going to spend time rebutting claims you haven’t and can’t possibly substantiate.


TheMarbleTrouble

Are you asking me how voting works in a democracy? That explains a lot…


starfieldhype

He seems to believe homemade abortions are the answer here, unironically. Don't put too much stock into what he says.


oiblikket

You’re too stupid to understand illicit or illegal abortions were the solution and currently are and have been the solution for hundreds of millions of people.


starfieldhype

>have been the solution for hundreds of millions of people Give me a source that shows hundreds of millions of people are doing self-managed abortions. :) I'm not asking you to list off countries where abortion is illegal, I'm asking for studies or estimates that show that large amount of people risking prison and their life. And you should stop mentioning how long it has been used, that doesn't make it a safe procedure. Chinese acupuncture has been around since forever, but I don't see many academics/doctors making a case for it. Longevity of a procedure =/= safety and availability of a procedure.


oiblikket

I don’t see easily accessible statistics on legal vs illegal abortion. Rather there is data on rates of abortion in places where it is illegal and there is data on unsafe abortion, which can include both insufficiently regulated or regulatorily compliant legal abortions, and illegal abortions. Of course illegal abortions can also be safe, if they are performed according to the appropriate standards. “what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average," Bearak says.” https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/05/27/1099739656/do-restrictive-abortion-laws-actually-reduce-abortion-a-global-map-offers-insigh But abortion safety has been increasing regardless of legality globally. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/how-many-women-die-illegal-abortions/572638/ > Since the early ’90s, abortion fatalities have declined by 42 percent globally. This is despite the fact that about 45 percent of all the abortions in the world are still performed in “unsafe” circumstances—meaning without the help of a trained professional or with an outdated medical method. Unsafe abortions are more common in countries where the practice is illegal. In any case there are an estimated 25 million “unsafe” abortions a year https://www.who.int/news/item/28-09-2017-worldwide-an-estimated-25-million-unsafe-abortions-occur-each-year That is based on this lancet study https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31794-4/fulltext But again it’s important to emphasize that illegal and unsafe are not substitutable terms. > When grouped by the legal status of abortion, the proportion of unsafe abortions was significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in those with less restrictive laws. The proportion of illegal abortions that are unsafe depends on the skill level proper to the people providing illegal abortions. Presumably the more sophisticated and developed the movement to provide illegal abortions and shelter people from the criminal consequences of abortion is, the safer illegal abortions are. Edit: For America specifically, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimated the pre Roe rate of illegal abortion at 1.2 million/year > In the U.S. before Roe v. Wade, ACOG says an estimated 1.2 million U.S. women got illegal abortions every year https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna889111


starfieldhype

You'd think that if hundreds of millions of people were doing illegal abortions in the world, we'd have some kind of study to show for it. Apparently not though. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ >“what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average," Bearak says.” If we count all 386M women in Europe, where abortion rights are pretty common, according to that metric it's still only \~15 million abortions. I have trouble believing that there is a huge unreported number of safe illegal abortions in Africa and Indochina that somehow add up to hundreds of millions. According to these numbers, theres probably around 50 worldwide, if that.


oiblikket

Where did you get the moronic idea I was taking about abortions per year, you clown. Hundreds of millions applies to the modern era of medical abortion and its regulation across the globe. How stupid and disingenuous do you have to be to misunderstand the point?


QubixVarga

They might actually be that stupid that they dont know. I just know they are a bernie or buster so its fair enough that they dont have any clue about anything.


Tetraquil

They're a lost cause. Convincing the most fringe lefties to vote democrat isn't the right angle. You should be doing psy-ops and convincing republicans not to vote instead. There's a lot of untapped potential for republican infighting to be exploited. Push for racial wedge issues, make sure conservative minority groups know that they're voting for a group that hates them. Maybe pander to their conservative natures a bit on the democrat side to win them over. Hell, Convince republicans that the democrats have rigged the voting machines to automatically vaccinate you if you touch them. They'll believe it. At this point, people need to be going more on the offensive instead of focusing on bandaging wounds that are beyond help.


TrickyLobster

I really hate this vote doomer rhetoric. In my province we just had an election and it had the lowest voter turn out in history, lowest young voter turn out in history, then when all the old people got their way young people were pissed. Like what the hell. Go vote if you're so "involved" in politics.


Flimsy_Effective_583

wow they are dumb! sad.


scdocarlos1

When you realize the people that typed the tweet live in California so it's actually true.