Don't "love your enemies", because what comes of it is not love, it's passive aggressiveness. — baker

I know, right? How am I supposed to work around that, all MLK and Gandhi and shit? I know very well what the alternative is and I'm trying to avoid that. It's certainly not my nature.

But I've always been attracted to being different from the pack, and doing things the hard way; and loving these worthless bastards has got to be the hardest thing in the world!

But I've always been attracted to being different from the pack,

and doing things the hard way; and loving these worthless bastards has got to be the hardest thing in the world! — James Riley

Oh, come on, you have got to be more creative than that!

Oh, come on, you have got to be more creative than that! — baker

After the misgendering thread, I'm thinking I'm just a curmudgeon and plum out of creativity. :yikes:

Yes, it is totally unimportant. You see, the United States Republican Party used to be liberal and the United States Democrat Party used to be conservative. — James Riley

That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant.

That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant. — ssu

The reason I discount it is because I'm sick and tired of all the MAGAttes trying to act like they stopped slavery. They use it as a selling point to blacks: "Hey, how can you trust Dems? They fought against your emancipation and us righteous Republicans liberated you." BS. It's not a party thing, it's a liberal/conservative thing.

:up:

Republicans, and democrats, are the political equivalent of sports teams. Both sides hate each other simply because they're on a different team.

They are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. They both look for ways to control, regulate and erode freedom away from the American people. Democrats take away your economic freedom and republicans take away your social freedom. I hate them both.

I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.

Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). They criticize capitalism for eroding traditional values. They aren't that different from leftists economically, but are actually much worse overall because they're racists and sexists. They are moving towards fascism.

The utter inability to see fault in both parties is interesting, but very typical. As a foreigner, I think both parties are quite dubious here: first the Democratic Party had an obvious long lasting racist history and then the Republicans were all too happy to get the former white base that the Democrats "lost" during the 60's with the Civil Rights etc. That puts both parties to shame. It reeks to just a calculated political move that for both didn't have much to do with ideology.

What is also important to notice that these parties can change quite rapidly, basically last time it happened in just one decade. Today's parties might not be the ones from five years from now.

And the sad thing is that these two parties sustain their power grab of the political field by making it so toxic and polarizing.

The utter inability to see fault in both parties is interesting, but very typical. — ssu

The utter failure in your reasoning is interesting, but very typical. In the United States we call it "Butwhataboutism". It's a stupid, intentionally distracting tactic designed to take the attention off of one side that is under discussion. Please go see the title of this thread. If you want to start a thread about the Democrats, go head on. Or, if you want to try to bring them into this discussion, go head on. I can't stop you. But don't pretend to tell me what I think about the Democrats and their faults or absence thereof. That's BS. Keep your eye on the ball. You don't have a single fucking clue what I think about Democrats. You know why? Because I'm not talking about them.

Your efforts to school us on history also fail. See the OP. It says "What about today?" Not yesterday. Not the Civil War. Not the 60s. TODAY!

And the sad thing is that these two parties sustain their power grab of the political field by making it so toxic and polarizing. — ssu

This also smacks of another disgusting trait we find here in America. It's that proclivity of the media to give equal time to both sides of an issue, even if that means giving equal time to facts, on one side, and blatant fucking lies on the other. That is not journalism and it's the cause of, and not the result of, a toxic and polarizing situation.

Your dragging the Democrats into this is seen as an effort to take the focus off of Republicans. Your effort to toss in a token "they both do it" argument is seen as giving oxygen to liars.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. We are talking about Republicans here. They will never understand they are enemies of the Unites States of America if everyone is always giving them aid and comfort by attacking Democrats, or by giving Republican lies equal time, as if there is any credibility there.

You want to fix Dems? Go there. But don't try to school me about what I think on that issue.

:100: :clap:

I think the Democratic Party has faults, but they're not on the same scale as what we're seeing from Republicans. Nowhere near it. One of the characteristic tactics of apologists for Trumpism is 'what-aboutism'. 'You say the Republican party is corrupt? What about the way the Democratic Party [insert false accusation].'

The Republican Party is the party that is demonstrably mounting an attack on the Constitution and on democratic principles. As Biden says these attempts to 'fix' the vote are just that - attempts to stay in power by vote-rigging. It's an absolute disgrace and a travesty of democracy.

I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.
Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). — Kasperanza

Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it.. No one is interested -- least of all me.



I agree with ssu that history is important, and that both parties are similar in that both have been bought off by corporate interests (among other things). I like Chomsky's assessment on this: "The Democrats are what used to be called moderate Republicans." I think that's true of the establishment to this day, while the Republicans have gone off the spectrum. But with the influence of Bernie's movement, I think that's beginning to change. We're hearing more sensible (and modest, by international standards) proposals -- universal healthcare, free public education, action on climate change, taxing the wealthy, etc. -- and that's having an effect.

On the other hand, I've been arguing along similar lines with James. It's simply false equivalence to throw our hands up and say "both parties are awful" and leave it at that. That may have been the case as far back as 1996 or even to some degree up to 2008 (at least John McCain had a climate change policy), but it's just obvious now that one party is clearly preferable to the other, despite all their flaws. If for no other reason than what we're seeing with Biden: they're at least capable of being persuaded/pushed into making decent moves. The Republicans? Forget it. They want to go the complete opposite way, so it's hopeless. I use climate change as a good contrast: one party says it's important and makes proposals (usually way to weak, etc), and the other does what? Says it's a hoax. Doesn't get more clear than that. So any kind of variation on the "What about the other side" argument is a pretty tired move to make at this point. Yes, most of us are well aware of the flaws of the Democrats. I'd like to see the two-party system change. But it's what we have right now. So given the choices, I think it's clear which is preferable -- IF we profess to care about the planet, healthcare, the poor, etc.

Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it up your wazoo. No one is interested -- least of all me. — Xtrix

Should I stick up Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? I guess Atlas because it's bigger. Ahhh yeah let's go. That's super nice. Uggghhhhhh!!!

But with the influence of Bernie's movement, I think that's beginning to change. — Xtrix

At least you are an optimist. I wouldn't be so much.

Americans have this strange idea of "changing the party from the inside". The revolutionary thing that these two parties have done is to brainwash American voters to think that the parties own invention, "the primaries", are part of the actual election.

Bernie is more like the lure for those young Americans who basically are for social democracy (or that kind of stuff), yet Bernie will bow down to the party machine once the actual decision time comes. Bernie is all too happy to be "the second runner up" to what the party leaders want. And if he gets some legislation through, some success in moving the party to left, that is all he wants. You see, the Democratic Party isn't a social democratic party. Hence it simply won't go for universal health care or workers rights as a fully fledged social democratic party would do. In the US you have a centrist and a right-wing party. Simple as that.

(Yes....Bernie. An alternative? Really? Change will happen?)



Same way Ron Paul lured libertarians to vote for the Republican party, I should add.

(Are these guys supposed to be libertarians or Republicans or RINOs?)

Bernie is more like the lure for those young Americans who basically are for social democracy (or that kind of stuff), yet Bernie will bow down to the party machine once the actual decision time comes. Bernie is all too happy to be "the second runner up" to what the party leaders want. And if he gets some legislation through, some success in moving the party to left, that is all he wants. — ssu

But this leaves out crucial details of the actual circumstances. There's a difference between "bowing down" and being a realist. Right now Manchin is in the way of most progressive legislation. Maybe some members like Manchin being the fall guy, since it lets them off the hook, and if any of it came to a vote they'd be on the fence themselves. Still, he and Sinema are outspoken, so that's the reality in a 50-50 senate.

We'll see what gets done -- if they can pass this latest bill through reconciliation, that'll be a good start. Not sure how much more Bernie can do essentially by himself (with maybe a handful of others on board).

So I really don't see this as fair criticism, especially once the reality of the situation is understood. Given the stakes in the world today, and the senate context, it's necessary to compromise -- otherwise the alternative is that nothing gets done. Given the situation we find ourselves in -- climate change, inequality, etc. -- we can't simply pout it all away. Much like the election last year, and those who advocated for not voting or voting third party because Bernie didn't advance, this is completely irrational.

You see, the Democratic Party isn't a social democratic party. Hence it simply won't go for universal health care or workers rights as a fully fledged social democratic party would do. In the US you have a centrist and a right-wing party. Simple as that. — ssu

Yes, truisms and cheap cynicism gets us much farther. Too bad the approach of wishing things away doesn't work.

True, the two-party system is awful. That the DNC didn't want Bernie and managed to beat him back is also true. The fact that they're not in favor of many of Bernie's proposals -- also true. I've said all that before myself, and this is widely known. Move on from that.

I don't care for Biden or the Democrats. They happen to be our only realistic bet for anything close to being done, and they're clearly more susceptible to being pushed in the right direction. Right now it's all proposals, and not much has been enacted -- but the proposals themselves are a change. To overlook this is just as unrealistic as being an "optimist" about things.

So I really don't see this as fair criticism, especially once the reality of the situation is understood. — Xtrix

Well, do you have an universal health care system that other western countries have? Or do you think Biden will give you basically free tertiary (university-level) education like my country has?



Put that to be the benchmark.

True, the two-party system is awful. That the DNC didn't want Bernie and managed to beat him back is also true. The fact that they're not in favor of many of Bernie's proposals -- also true. I've said all that before myself, and this is widely known. Move on from that. — Xtrix

Well, if you accept the two party system, then don't be surprised when nothing really changes.

Besides, a lot of younger Americans don't actually want socialism in the classic sense. What they want is a welfare system equivalent to other western countries in the most richest country and not all the wealth going to the wealthiest.

I don't care for Biden or the Democrats. They happen to be our only realistic bet for anything close to being done, and they're clearly more susceptible to being pushed in the right direction. — Xtrix

And some conservatives will hope that the Republicans would push things to their liking also. So you both will uphold the two party system.

Well, those two parties are counting on you to do that. And then it's just business as usual.

That parties have dramatically changed in time is in my view a noteworthy fact, not something totally unimportant. — ssu

And, of course, there was once the Democratic-Republican Party.

Such an ironic name.

Well, if you accept the two party system, then don't be surprised when nothing really changes. — ssu

What exactly are you implying by "accept"? I accept the electoral college too, and death for that matter. I don't like any of them. I work to change what can be changed. But at present, they're a reality. So yes, I accept reality despite my feelings, and work within that reality. I encourage everyone to do so.

Besides, a lot of younger Americans don't actually want socialism in the classic sense. — ssu

"in the classic sense" is meaningless. Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares.

So you both will uphold the two party system. — ssu

:roll: :yawn:

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.

What exactly are you implying by "accept"? — Xtrix

You accept the party when you just hope that the party would change it's course as an internal event. Or think that it's meaningless to vote for any other party however disappointed you are in the party: that your vote would be then "lost".

If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares. — Xtrix

One should care what parties are in favor of them. It's not actually socialism, you know. Many right-wing parties at least in Europe are for them. Good example is Sweden. Put often to be an example of socialism, the country is quite capitalistic and "capitalism friendly". Modern Social Democracy isn't totally against capitalism.

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet. — Xtrix

It really isn't my thing as a foreigner to do that. I'm still quite happy at politics in my country. The US-type polarization hasn't yet landed here. Hopefully the bullying never reaches these shores.

What I'm saying is that many people have these illusions on how much power the current political parties have and assume that the landscape is totally fixed. It isn't. In the US example a third party could rise to oppose the duopoly if it would have the strategy to start from the grass roots level, from communal and state level. Not thinking that a rapid dash of a third contender in the Presidential elections would do the job. It won't. To improve (or restore) democracy, one first has to believe in it.

What exactly are you implying by "accept"?
— Xtrix
You accept the party when you just hope that the party would change it's course as an internal event. Or think that it's meaningless to vote for any other party however disappointed you are in the party: that your vote would be then "lost". — ssu

You're completely wrong about the first point. It's typical of those who apparently believe voting is the only political action available, in fact (not to say you're one of them, but this line of argument is often used by them).

But no, it's not about sitting back and "hoping." As I've said many times, it's about doing the opposite: not simply sitting down after voting and passively watching with fingers crossed, but organizing, activism, involvement, educating oneself and others, developing and pushing for programs, etc. The Sunrise Movement is a good example of this. There would be no Green New deal proposal if not for them. That's significant, and it's not simply a matter of voting. It's what happens after you vote where real change is created. I've said this all along.

As for the second, you're somewhat correct -- except in the case of a non-swing state, in which case there's some argument to be made for voting third party. To not vote at all, or to give your vote to a third party, in a swing state, rather than to the least damaging of the two parties (who will realistically come into power) is irrational and irresponsible. That's just a matter of counting. Whether it's meaningful is not the point -- it may very well be meaningful to you. But that doesn't circumvent arithmetic, our feelings of disappointment aside.

Socialism is like talking about "god" -- it can mean almost anything you want. If universal health care and free public education is socialism, fine. If not, that's fine too. Who cares. — Xtrix

One should care what parties are in favor of them. It's not actually socialism, you know. Many right-wing parties at least in Europe are for them. Good example is Sweden. Put often to be an example of socialism, the country is quite capitalistic and "capitalism friendly". Modern Social Democracy isn't totally against capitalism. — ssu

Again: talk of "socialism" and "capitalism" are essentially useless, at least until we define our terms. The point is the policies. So saying a country is "capitalist friendly" is meaningless to me. Most countries, as I think you're aware, are mixed economies. In the US, we're a state-capitalist economy. Massive state intervention on all levels. That's not the capitalism of Friedman or Smith or Ricardo.

So the point is the policies, and you're right -- we should see which parties support these policies, all labels aside. And it just so happens that the Democratic party in the United States are becoming more receptive to these policies, though we have a LONG way to go. Still, there's a progressive wing within in Sanders, AOC, Warren, Markey, and others. We can and should constantly hold them accountable criticize them mercilessly, push them further and further, etc. But given the Republican party, and how dangerous they are, the Democrats are also currently the best shot we have at getting anything through whatsoever. With the Republicans, there's no chance. Zero. In fact they now stand for the polar opposite of what we want policy-wise.

Right, because you're doing so much to change it by complaining about it on the internet.
— Xtrix
It really isn't my thing as a foreigner to do that. I'm still quite happy at politics in my country. The US-type polarization hasn't yet landed here. Hopefully the bullying never reaches these shores. — ssu

OK -- where do you live?

What I'm saying is that many people have these illusions on how much power the current political parties have and assume that the landscape is totally fixed. It isn't. In the US example a third party could rise to oppose the duopoly if it would have the strategy to start from the grass roots level, from communal and state level. Not thinking that a rapid dash of a third contender in the Presidential elections would do the job. It won't. To improve (or restore) democracy, one first has to believe in it. — ssu

Well count me as a believer. Count me as a believer in abolishing the electoral college. Count me in for overthrowing capitalism, for that matter.

There are lots of things I'd like to see happen, and I'll continuing pushing for them as long as I'm alive. But as you said, a national third party hasn't gained any traction yet. Ross Perot, oddly enough, garnered the most votes of any third party in decades with his "Reform Party" in 1992. Some say he only helped Clinton get elected. But regardless, if it's a matter of belief, then it's up to us to build up that belief, start small, and build up a third party and then hopefully spread to other states and, eventually, on a national level.

You're right, it's not inevitable. It's actually extremely odd that a country like ours doesn't have some kind of labor party. But as long as most people don't find that strange, it's unlikely to change.

You're completely wrong about the first point. It's typical of those who apparently believe voting is the only political action available, in fact (not to say you're one of them, but this line of argument is often used by them). — Xtrix

There are obviously a multitude of ways to participate in politics and the democratic process, but usually the thing for many is voting.

Count me in for overthrowing capitalism, for that matter. — Xtrix

Wasn't the term essentially useless to you, as many other terms?

Some say he only helped Clinton get elected. — Xtrix

That is the way people look at it, yet there is the illogical idea of a third party being a spoiler: that especially if the third party is going for the voters that have voted for your party, it will cause the opposite side to win. This is why polarization works for the duopoly.

Good that you mentioned Perot. I think he was an unfortunate kind of "third party" is the political movement was centered around one person, likely who will run for the highest executive position. These parties are so loose, are totally dependent on the whims of this single person and will simply vanish once the great leader has died. In fact, Ross Perot isn't the only example, Teddy Roosevelt even tried the third party gambit after already been a President.

(He was fit as a Bull Moose for the Progressive Party.)

what do they stand for, at bottom? — Xtrix

I think they have been incredibly consistent.

They stand for, at bottom, no less than the complete destruction of the United States. Just look at some of their recent accomplishments:

* They actively made Covid as destructive and painful for us as they possibly could have
By first hoaxing, to politicizing masks, to politicizing vaccines, to legislating against any mandates, they have successfully brought the most powerful and resourced country to its knees with this virus. They are directly responsible for dozens of 9/11s worth of excess deaths.

* They facilitated and covered for the ransack of the Capitol, in order to end democracy.
Let that indisputable sentence sink in. And those most unpatriotic of all goons had the nerve to wave their stupid flags and bald eagles.

* They punished and humiliated the nation with Trump
Had they just flown a cargo jet full of manure and literally taken a dump on lady liberty's face, America would not have suffered 1/100th the humiliation and loss of face in the world than we did with 4 years or Trump. While crying about us being global laughingstocks, they simultaneously made us into one.

* They revel in, and don't just do nothing, they actively accelerate the climate catastrophe
What more effective way to bring down a nation than to bring down the whole planet with it?

They are the autophages gobbling up the dying cells of American empire.

Can't argue with any of that. They bring their voters with them in their media, then when the voters get too insane, they're left with a dilemma: either be insane ourselves, or pretend to be so we can stay in power. They've mostly chosen the latter. And why? For what end? Simple: to gain even more power for the class they represent -- the corporate class. The Republicans are much more loyal to business than the Democrats are, and even the Democrats are loyal. The Dems also aren't being bought off by the worst type of scum in history: the fossil fuel industry. Worse than tobacco companies, by far.

So bring down the country -- kill people by denying pandemics, masks and vaccines; get people unnecessarily riled up and divided against the "liberal elites" as "Anti-American" or "Communists" or "Destroyers of America"; destroy the environment by acerbating climate change. All for more power.

It's incredible. Chomsky is right: "The Republican party is the most dangerous in human history."

what do they stand for, — Xtrix

Freedom.

what do they stand for,
— Xtrix

Freedom — hope

:rofl:

Addendum to

"Republicans are America's Problem" by Charles M. Blow
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/17/opinion/republicans-cheney-trump-democracy.html

I saw that too.

Situational morality is better than none, I suppose, but I see it for what it is, and I am minimally moved.

However, her loss does crystallize something for us that many had already known: that the bar to clear in the modern Republican Party isn’t being sufficiently conservative but rather being sufficiently obedient to Donald Trump and his quest to deny and destroy democracy.

We must stop thinking it hyperbolic to say that the Republican Party itself is now a threat to our democracy. I understand the queasiness about labeling many of our fellow Americans in that way. I understand that it sounds extreme and overreaching.

But how else are we to describe what we are seeing?

I think people are beginning to realize that Chomsky's statement a few years ago, that "The Republican party is the most dangerous organization" in human history, although criticized at the time, is absolutely true. Not just for their being vehemently anti-democracy, but because of their rush to destroy the prospects of human life on earth, through their unanimous denial of global warming and promotion of fossil fuel use.

And yet there's a good chance they take over congress in a couple months and obtain the presidency in 2024. Pretty scary.

And yet there's a good chance they take over congress in a couple months and obtain the presidency in 2024. Pretty scary. — Xtrix

No I don't think so. Don't believe the hype. Individual-1 is dead man trundling. Desantis is loathsome even in Florida. Maybe Tucker Carlson will run ... :sweat:

No need to fret just yet about 2024.

Anyway, as for 2022, long before Moscow Mitch conceded this week (or last) that the Dems are likely to pick up seats in the Senate, I'd been saying at least since SCOTUS wantonly shat on Reproductive Freedom that the Dems chances of holding the House & Senate were good. Recall the anti-abortion referendum got crushed in ruby red Kansas just a couple of weeks ago! (Iirc, about a third of rural Republicans – women no doubt – voted against the GOP measure!)

And since the public J6 Hearings have significantly moved polls on Independents away from the GOP this summer and extreme Trumpstains are on so many ballots around the country making otherwise safe seats competitive, Dems midterm chances have only improved. The latest news about tr45h being investigated for Espionage, etc can only turn off / frighten the same Independent and moderate Republican suburban voters who bailed on the GOP in 2018 and 2020. And y'know there's at least a footlocker's worth of boots to drop before November, don't ya? :up:

Lastly, inflation is inching down and gas prices have been dropping – that'll ease up the anti-Biden/Dems negatives a little. Improvements on the margins in a number of areas will add up to significant, maybe general election size turn-out which always favors Dems.

As far as the Charles Blow op-ed goes, he gives greater voice to something I've been crowing about for years on a number of threads (re: posted a link above the op-ed link in my previous post) about the long-term "populist" trends and anti-democratic decades-long trajectory in America which has culminated in this historical moment: Make Apartheid Great Again. :angry:

No I don't think so. Don't believe the hype. Individual-1 is dead man trundling. Desantis is loathsome even in Florida. — 180 Proof

Er, I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. I think the Republicans have gerrymandered their way to control of the House no matter what. Polling doesn't look great on that front either. Slightly better in the Senate.

Anyway, as for 2022, long before Moscow Mitch conceded this week (or last) that the Dems are likely to pick up seats in the Senate, I'd been saying at least since SCOTUS wantonly shat on Reproductive Freedom that the Dems chances of holding the House & Senate were good. Recall the anti-abortion referendum got crushed in ruby red Kansas just a couple of weeks ago! (Iirc, about a third of rural Republican – women – no doubt voted against the GOP measure!)

And since the public J6 Hearings have significantly moved polls on Independents away from the GOP this summer and extreme Trumpstains are on so many ballots around making otherwise safe seats competitive, Dems midterm chances have only improved. The latest news about tr45h being investigated for Espionage, etc can only turn off / frighten the same Independent and moderate Republican suburban voters who bailed on the GOP in 2018 and 2020. And y'know there's at least a footlocker's worth of boots to drop before November, don't ya? :up: — 180 Proof

Like I said, I hope so. But I'm not counting on it, given the historical trends. This could be very different, however -- if the turnout is high. The last two elections they've been high, and I have no idea if they will be for this one or not. Maybe young people will get out to vote, maybe not. Older people generally vote, and I think they have to be liking the bill regarding prescription drugs.

There's also Biden's approval numbers, which aren't great.

Overall, I'm not as optimistic but there certainly are some positive trends. Fingers crossed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.