American Politics

[M3J]

US being the dominant power is why we have so many issues in the world

 

[shionoro]

And one thing is clear: that dominance does not translate the wellbeing of your citizens.

 

[ninjabot]

Republican congressman calls for halting of disaster relief to California

I don't have the temperament or self-control necessary for a job in politics.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 12, 2025, Original Post Date: Jan 12, 2025 ---

I wasn't talking about another Bernie run, I said he's a figurehead. AOC is pretty much a careerist politician at this point, she's not a strong advocate for these causes anymore IMO.

I'm not sure what the perception is from the average supporter or voter, but the messaging Sanders has always used is about the influence of money in politics. It's the root cause of almost anything needing reform. If you watch any interview with Sanders he's mentioned the damage the Citizens United decision has done. Of course there's other topics, but like you said it almost always comes back to moneyed interests.

I mistook figurehead for spearhead.

But yeah, my point stands that his efforts die with him. Unless you know of someone else with the means to carry the torch.

Does the "other team" have the same goals as non right-wingers have? Because I would say they obviously don't. So I'm not sure why anyone would say the same exact strategy is a winning one just because they do it.

Generally yes. At least the one I'm talking about: win. Win so you can proceed with plans to enforce your agenda. I'm talking only about the election when I say "win" btw, because I'm agreeing with O'Malley's sentiment.

 

[M3J]

And one thing is clear: that dominance does not translate the wellbeing of your citizens.

Especially when politicians only care about themselves and the wealthy. Like Biden giving more money to Israel to continue their genocide while doing little to help people or future-proof against Trump's stupidity

 

[ninjabot]

 

[Newkerzy]

Bernie's done. And I don't think AOC ever plans on getting serious about a presidential run. If so, it'll be a few elections away. I dunno, I've never viewed Bernie's biggest contribution to the discourse being him being against money in politics. I know he was very stalwart in that messaging but it always seemed to me what moved the people was his willingness to attack Democrats and Republicans, dogged defense of the working class, further left-leaning positions about healthcare and stuff, and constant beating of the "the top 1-percent are fucking everything up" drum (which I guess would include money in politics...)

I’m pretty curious with your thoughts on this one. Any particular reason why you think so? Aside from the old crusts trying to blueball her in her own party.

 

[shionoro]

@ninjabot

The current fires are a good example of what we have been talking about before. Everybody is blaming Newsom and the Cali leadership now for cuts or problems with the response. Some of that criticism is probably true. But even if they had the most stellar conventional fire response, that wouldnt change a thing. They'd still get blamed for it because there is no way to adapt to climate change on the long run.

The whole region will be hit by more of that in the future and insurers have already pulled out. Same for Florida. There is no way for any government to keep control of that without actions that are seen as radical today (like using a high wealth taxation in order to raise the funds to protect the cities). Just having a robust response withing the usual budget constraints is not going to cut it. But this is exactly the line of defense at the moment: defending themselves by saying their fire management is very good compared to the conditions that we had 10 years ago. They will not face the reality of it not being enough now.

We should do that while we still can, because such action will become harder (or even impossible) if we wait too long. If we do not prepare now, there will be a day in the near future in which the government says "sorry, you are on your own, we cannot help anymore". Or at least act along that line. I have been through a flood in my country myself and it was exactly the same thing: people woke up to the fact they were on their own. They tend to forget it as long as these events are seen as rare, but they are not going to be rare anymore.

 

[ninjabot]

I’m pretty curious with your thoughts on this one. Any particular reason why you think so? Aside from the old crusts trying to blueball her in her own party.

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. I think she's gradually been beaten down into a more moderate political position (at least publicly. She could still be further left-leaning but hiding her power level to protect her career). But the internet remembers. She wouldn't be able to downplay her actions in the past on the campaign stage. Republicans will pull the same "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" strategy if AOC runs for president and she'll be fighting her past as a "Radical Leftist" forever. And she'd be fighting establishment Dems along with the Right. She'd be fighting the entire world. I don't know that she has the heart for it.

I know I wouldn't.

The current fires are a good example of what we have been talking ab out before.Everybody is blaming Newsom and the Cali leadership now for cuts or problems with the response. And some of that criticism is probably true. But even if they had the most stellar fire response game, that wouldnt change a thing. They'd still get blamed for it because there is no way to adapt to climate change on the long run.

The whole region will be hit by more of that in the future and insurers have already pulled out (or will pull out soon). And the same goes for other regions like Florida. There is no way for any government to keep control of that without actions that are seen as radical today (like using a high wealth taxation in order to raise the funds to protect the cities). Just having a robust response withing the usual budget constraints is not going to cut it.

We should do that while we still can, because such action will become harder (or even impossible) if we wait too long. If we do not prepare now, there will be a day in the near future in which the government says "sorry, you are on your own, we cannot help anymore". Or at least act along that line.

I know. Good luck convincing people of that. You're preaching radical action, which EVERYONE except radicals are against. You might as well become a tanky because you're only gonna get your way through authoritarian action... which you won't even get a chance to use if you can't win elections to GAIN said power to get your way in the first place.

 

[shionoro]

I know. Good luck convincing people of that. You're preaching radical action, which EVERYONE except radicals are against. You might as well become a tanky because you're only gonna get your way through authoritarian action... which you won't even get a chance to use if you can't win elections to GAIN said power to get your way in the first place.

It would be enough for me if moderates stop joining the choir and deriding any proper solutions as radical. That would really help at convincing people.

"People" didnt come up with the idea that we can fight climate change while doing basically nothing on their own. Moderate democrats helped to convince them of that. Kamala Harris stands on stage and says fracking is good, we do not need to ban it and is proud that america produced even more gas. And Newsom gives the messaging that nobody could expect fires that bad to arrive, which means the cali fire response was sufficient and it was just bad luck what happened.

If democrats would stop doing that, there would be a far bigger chance to actually win on these issues. Even if you (like John Kerry) lose an election running on that, on the long run, if you have a consistent story that just is true, you will get your chance. If you lie just like republicans do and claim we can keep up business as usual, people are right not to trust you. After all, whenever you are in power, you fail them just like Republicans do and they notice.

You tell me that it is important to elect moderate dems because they will secretly fight for actual change and openly fight for some change. Where is the differencve now between Cali and Florida? There are a million gradual difference, of course, but bottom line is: They are not able to protect your property and once your house is gone, you are fucked. What did 20 years of complete Dem government in Cali actually do when it comes to substantial change? Why would I think that 10 years of complete federal or gubernational Dem leadership will save us? They will all do the same thing: Go on stage and say that they are doing everything right while the world burns, and give the people who demand real change a slap in the face while they are at it.

 

[M3J]

@ninjabot

The current fires are a good example of what we have been talking about before. Everybody is blaming Newsom and the Cali leadership now for cuts or problems with the response. Some of that criticism is probably true. But even if they had the most stellar conventional fire response, that wouldnt change a thing. They'd still get blamed for it because there is no way to adapt to climate change on the long run.

The whole region will be hit by more of that in the future and insurers have already pulled out. Same for Florida. There is no way for any government to keep control of that without actions that are seen as radical today (like using a high wealth taxation in order to raise the funds to protect the cities). Just having a robust response withing the usual budget constraints is not going to cut it. But this is exactly the line of defense at the moment: defending themselves by saying their fire management is very good compared to the conditions that we had 10 years ago. They will not face the reality of it not being enough now.

We should do that while we still can, because such action will become harder (or even impossible) if we wait too long. If we do not prepare now, there will be a day in the near future in which the government says "sorry, you are on your own, we cannot help anymore". Or at least act along that line. I have been through a flood in my country myself and it was exactly the same thing: people woke up to the fact they were on their own. They tend to forget it as long as these events are seen as rare, but they are not going to be rare anymore.

Didn't Cali make it so insurances can't mess with the policies and screw people?

 

[ninjabot]

It would be enough for me if moderates stop joining the choir and deriding any proper solutions as radical. That would really help at convincing people.

How would you demonstrate to these moderates that you're not radical then? Or that your political prescription is the proper solution? What can you provide them as proof that your political ideas can work in our country?

"People" didnt come up with the idea that we can fight climate change while doing basically nothing on their own. Moderate democrats helped to convince them of that. Kamala Harris stands on stage and says fracking is good, we do not need to ban it and is proud that america produced even more gas. And Newsom gives the messaging that nobody could expect fires that bad to arrive, which means the cali fire response was sufficient and it was just bad luck what happened.

Right, but they didn't convince anyone through radical, scary political propaganda and ostracization of the people who don't believe them. It took time, it took the advocacy of scientists who explained themselves calmly and continuously. It took an avoidance of accelerationist action to get the people on their side. Kamala didn't say fracking is good by the way. She backed off of being against it because a huge swath of society was afraid of the failing economy (the vibe-cession) And wanted to emphasize to them that Democrats can make the correct decisions toward dealing with that. The Newsom stuff, I won't speak on because I don't know anything about it. I don't know what decisions led to this lack of support against a potential event like this.

If democrats would stop doing that, there would be a far bigger chance to actually win on these issues. Even if you (like John Kerry) lose an election running on that, on the long run, if you have a consistent story that just is true, you will get your chance. If you lie just like republicans do and claim we can keep up business as usual, people are right not to trust you. After all, whenever you are in power, you fail them just like Republicans do and they notice.

Then I'd love you to tell the woman who is gonna die in a parking lot, bleeding out from pregnancy complications that an abortion would solve, why their death is a necessary sacrifice. Emphasize to them that your political endeavors require their suffering, and how it's gonna save the children of Palestine, or the homeless people in California, or the the polar bears in Alaska. That'll help them fade away with a smile, assuredly. Certainly, it won't paint these people as idealistic, unrealistic threats to normal people everywhere.

You tell me that it is important to elect moderate dems because they will secretly fight for actual change and openly fight for some change. Where is the differencve now between Cali and Florida? There are a million gradual difference, of course, but bottom line is: They are not able to protect your property and once your house is gone, you are fucked. What did 20 years of complete Dem government in Cali actually do when it comes to substantial change? Why would I think that 10 years of complete federal or gubernational Dem leadership will save us? They will all do the same thing: Go on stage and say that they are doing everything right while the world burns, and give the people who demand real change a slap in the face while they are at it.

I don't know about substantial change that needed to be done concerning unexpected events like a state sundering forest fire. That's a problem of practicality rather than ideology as far as I can tell. I know the political spin on it though from the Right: that California is mishandled by Radical Leftist Gavin Newsom, spending exorbitant amounts of money on progressive pipe dreams that could have been spent preparing for these fires. Jesse Waters said the other night that we need a "complete federal takeover of California" It's super interesting how Conservatives are anti-big government until an opportunity to hinder the left presents itself.

 

[Newkerzy]

I mean, you hit the nail on the head. I think she's gradually been beaten down into a more moderate political position (at least publicly. She could still be further left-leaning but hiding her power level to protect her career). But the internet remembers. She wouldn't be able to downplay her actions in the past on the campaign stage. Republicans will pull the same "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" strategy if AOC runs for president and she'll be fighting her past as a "Radical Leftist" forever. And she'd be fighting establishment Dems along with the Right. She'd be fighting the entire world. I don't know that she has the heart for it.

I know I wouldn't.

Thanks for elaborating. But then….wouldn’t leaning even harder left be actually beneficial for her? It worked for the Republicans….I know that a lot of that is due to effective propaganda, but…..

Basically what shio said, more or less

If democrats would stop doing that, there would be a far bigger chance to actually win on these issues. Even if you (like John Kerry) lose an election running on that, on the long run, if you have a consistent story that just is true, you will get your chance. If you lie just like republicans do and claim we can keep up business as usual, people are right not to trust you. After all, whenever you are in power, you fail them just like Republicans do and they notice.

 

[kkck]

I do not see any "halfway non-worldwar case" scenario if there is no cooperation in a world with dwindling ressources and a bunch of imperialist powers. I also do not buy the story of every non-west-aligned country being impossible to reason with. As I said, it wasnt china who led abroad wars and regime changes for its own gains. As far as foreign policy goes, China has hostilities with its neighbours, but is far more peaceful than the US.

It is true China is a dictatorship and you can easily get into a psychiatric institution if you criticise the party, but I would also not buy that China or India are so much crueler to its citizens on the big scale. I mean, how decently does the US treat its own when you look at how the prison population is treated or how the police handles its citizens? From a European perspective, I could make the same argument about the US being impossible to reason with on that ground. Not even talking about what the US did to people abroad.

All of the 3 countries enable fairly normal lives with a rule of law to its standard citizens, none of them are north korea or afghanistan. You will find horrible stories from all of them, to varying degrees but still.

I don't see war between china and US as likely at all. Both trade too much, a war would put an immediate halt to that. There's a reason conflict between major powers in the past 50 years have been fought through proxies. China in a sense has a pretty modern yet aggressive foreign policy approach, throw money everywhere while passively enabling and/or promoting favorable authoritarian regimes. USA and EU currently have very little response to that.

There's simply no equivalency between the US and china here. I would never make the case that USA has no issues at all but you are comparing the US to an authoritarian regime that implemented the one child policy, is carrying out at least one genocide that I know of and god knows what else. The US could execute the entirety of the population in it's prisons and it still wouldn't be as bad as china as a whole.

 

[shionoro]

Right, but they didn't convince anyone through radical, scary political propaganda and ostracization of the people who don't believe them. It took time, it took the advocacy of scientists who explained themselves calmly and continuously. It took an avoidance of accelerationist action to get the people on their side. Kamala didn't say fracking is good by the way. She backed off of being against it because a huge swath of society was afraid of the failing economy (the vibe-cession) And wanted to emphasize to them that Democrats can make the correct decisions toward dealing with that. The Newsom stuff, I won't speak on because I don't know anything about it. I don't know what decisions led to this lack of support against a potential event like this.

Let me ask you a question there: If we elected democrats or other kinds of middle left politicians across the board: When will they start pushing for sufficient reform? I hope we agree that there is urgency in these issues (like climate change or inequality). They are escalating and solving these problems will only get harder (and tougher for the public). That means in 20 years, what seems radical now might not even be possible anymore.

So if they are not pushing for a wealth tax now and would accept inequality to rise even with their lukewarm tax reforms, or if they are not pushing for fracking bans now that you still have the economic power and infrastructure to stem a proper climate transformation, when will they?

Then I'd love you to tell the woman who is gonna die in a parking lot, bleeding out from pregnancy complications that an abortion would solve, why their death is a necessary sacrifice. Emphasize to them that your political endeavors require their suffering, and how it's gonna save the children of Palestine, or the homeless people in California, or the the polar bears in Alaska. That'll help them fade away with a smile, assuredly. Certainly, it won't paint these people as idealistic, unrealistic threats to normal people everywhere.

I am definitely never voting for the "pro women dying in parking lots" faction, wherever they are. But you think people are morally obligated to vote for the "We are actually good people but have to lie to the public and fuel wars to win elections" party. And I would still never ask you to tell a griefing mother in Gaza that America had to deliver weapons to her child's murderer so democrats had better chances to win an election.

It is not like democrats are stopping all the horrible things happening in America even when they get to rule and I do not think they, as a party, are trying. I want the people to win who actually are trying to stop anyone from dying in a parking lot or due to poverty. And I do not feel obligated to support those who want to weaponize a dying woman or a child in a cage but are ok with other kinds of pain if it suits them (and then call it necessary).

It is not the morally right option to lie or even support crimes like in gaza or fracking just to win the election. One is definitely not responsible for other bad actors pushing for abortion ban just because they didnt become spineless frauds who trust pollsters more than their heart.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 14, 2025, Original Post Date: Jan 13, 2025 ---

I don't see war between china and US as likely at all. Both trade too much, a war would put an immediate halt to that. There's a reason conflict between major powers in the past 50 years have been fought through proxies. China in a sense has a pretty modern yet aggressive foreign policy approach, throw money everywhere while passively enabling and/or promoting favorable authoritarian regimes. USA and EU currently have very little response to that.

There's simply no equivalency between the US and china here. I would never make the case that USA has no issues at all but you are comparing the US to an authoritarian regime that implemented the one child policy, is carrying out at least one genocide that I know of and god knows what else. The US could execute the entirety of the population in it's prisons and it still wouldn't be as bad as china as a whole.

Isn't that pretty much exactly what the EU and US do in Africa and the middle east? It is not like we do not support Saudi Arabia or play our little games in Lybia, Sudan and so on. I do not agree with your view that China is more aggressive than the US when it comes to foreing policy, but maybe that is beside the point.

My point is: If you believe that the US needs the ressources so much that it HAS TO secure them, that is also true for China. If it is truly so necessary that you even say Trump's action is a step into the right direction (at least that is what i understood from your post), then that means it is existential to secure it. If that is true, that is also true for China and any other player. These ressources are finite. If we do not properly recycle them or save them, they are not going to last forever. They will be increasingly fought over, especially when global problems escalate due to climate change and demand escalates due to AI and other technological progress.

How do you see this not ending with a war if countries do not share?

 

[ninjabot]

The only correct course on fracking is banning it.

If you were to ask an economist that, would they agree? What about the average American complaining about gas prices?

Exactly, that is what I meant when I said that moderates winning can mean leftist ideas being blamed even tho they were not executed. Because a moderate will claim to be a leftist and push some seemingly leftist reforms, but since he isnt going all the way, it doesnt actually work and seems the ideas were bad instead of their execution.

I dunno about the "claiming to be a Leftist" part but I agree with the rest of it.

I am definitely never voting for the "pro women dying in parking lots" faction, wherever they are. But you think people are morally obligated to vote for the "We are actually good people but have to lie to the public and fuel wars to win elections" party. And I would never ask you to tell a griefing mother in Gaza that America had to deliver weapons to her child's murderer so democrats had better chances to win an election.

Both sides lie to the public, but one side's moral prescriptions match my own, so it's okay *shrug*. Secular Humanism just doesn't fit in a Conservative worldview. Hypocritical as that is, it cuts right to the heart of it. We can demonstrably prove that Democratic rule is better than Republican rule from a Secular Humanist standpoint.

As for the bolded, if a grieving mother in Gaza asked me why I could vote for a Democrat that continues to arm Israel, I wouldn't say it to her face if her child is newly 'sploded by drone strikes... but if the conversation took place a year or two later, I'd simply be honest with her and say that "I think about the genocide in Gaza just as often as you think about the genocide in Darfur. Or China."

Now they can retort "Yeah, but your government actually has a hand in our genocide so it's not the same. We're being bombed by your missiles." And that's a valid retort. But there's no way to say "That sucks but I'm worried about me and my own more than I'm worried about what's happening to you" without sounding like a monster. I won't do anything but hurt their feelings, and they've got more important things to worry about.

It is not like democrats are stopping all the horrible things happening in America even when they get to rule and I do not think they, as a party, are trying. I want the people to win who actually are trying to stop anyone from dying in a parking lot or due to poverty. And I do not feel obligated to support those who want to wepaonize a dying woman in a parking lot but are ok with other kinds of pain if it suits them (and then call it necessary). Because they tend to fight and demonize the people who actually care.

I think they're trying harder than Republicans are, and that that matters. And even if they don't care as much as Leftists do (we obviously don't), we've got less obstacles to deal with than you do. Because we're one of those obstacles.

Thanks for elaborating. But then….wouldn’t leaning even harder left be actually beneficial for her? It worked for the Republicans….I know that a lot of that is due to effective propaganda, but…..

Basically what shio said, more or less

From her perspective? I don't think so. She seems to be deradicalizing her rhetoric to seem more tame for career reasons. Or maybe she is just becoming less radical legitimately. I don't know. But whatever event or decision is causing her to be less of a Leftist firebrand, I doubt it's gone from the political climate just yet.

Hey, for all I know she really IS thinking of a presidential run one day and she wants to be viewed as someone that ALL facets of the Left can vote for, so she has to make America like her by just chilling out. (I think regular Dems already like her. I do.)

 

[M3J]

This isn't helping Biden or Dems look better when they were insisting Trump would make things worse

 

[shionoro]

If you were to ask an economist that, would they agree? What about the average American complaining about gas prices?

An economist might also think that war is a good thing. Economic models are not a hard science, they are built on assumptions. When they think about the cost and benefits of fracking, they think along the lines of "ok, a ton more co2 means we need this much more water, that costs x dollars". They do not take into account that there might not be enough water or that infrastructure gets destroyed by heat. That is why they can be very misleading.

Both sides lie to the public, but one side's moral prescriptions match my own, so it's okay *shrug*. Secular Humanism just doesn't fit in a Conservative worldview. Hypocritical as that is, it cuts right to the heart of it. We can demonstrably prove that Democratic rule is better than Republican rule from a Secular Humanist standpoint.

As for the bolded, if a grieving mother in Gaza asked me why I could vote for a Democrat that continues to arm Israel, I wouldn't say it to her face if her child is newly 'sploded by drone strikes... but if the conversation took place a year or two later, I'd simply be honest with her and say that "I think about the genocide in Gaza just as often as you think about the genocide in Darfur. Or China."

Now they can retort "Yeah, but your government actually has a hand in our genocide so it's not the same. We're being bombed by your missiles." And that's a valid retort. But there's no way to say "That sucks but I'm worried about me and my own more than I'm worried about what's happening to you" without sounding like a monster. I won't do anything but hurt their feelings, and they've got more important things to worry about.

Then why is it wrong of me to risk losing an election when fighting for something that is both right and sufficient instead of supporting something that is wrong and insufficient? It is better and even if there might be a victim that wouldnt be there if a Republican had not won, then why is me worrying more about the big picture wrong but you worrying more about yourself is right?

I risk losing an election while fighting for the right thing because I know that substantially more victims will follow if we keep fighting for the less wrong thing.

I think they're trying harder than Republicans are, and that that matters. And even if they don't care as much as Leftists do (we obviously don't), we've got less obstacles to deal with than you do. Because we're one of those obstacles.

Personally, if every single american state, by some sheer divine intervention, every relevant legislative body would be run by democrats for 10 years, then america would still be drifting into a dystopia just the same because they still wouldnt pass the necessary reforms to stop that. 10 years down the line, they would get toppled one after another and the fascists come back with more vigor without a lot of humanist accomplishments being done.

Would you disagree with that? If so, why?

 

[Newkerzy]

From her perspective? I don't think so. She seems to be deradicalizing her rhetoric to seem more tame for career reasons. Or maybe she is just becoming less radical legitimately. I don't know. But whatever event or decision is causing her to be less of a Leftist firebrand, I doubt it's gone from the political climate just yet.

Hey, for all I know she really IS thinking of a presidential run one day and she wants to be viewed as someone that ALL facets of the Left can vote for, so she has to make America like her by just chilling out. (I think regular Dems already like her. I do.)

All Right. Imma throw my wager in the ring.

AOC - (Michelle) Obama.

How’s that for a ticket?

Michelle won’t have to take too much of the spotlight, and she can offset some of AOC’s firebrand politics. Plus, she can be seen as the wise, chill mentor to her fiery progressive politics.

 

[shionoro]

I would be absolutely thrilled by an AOC run and I could also see her winning. That would be a candidate that I know is probably going to disappoint some of her voters, but that I would legitimately see as a good consensus option.

At least as long as she is not watering down her stances the second she runs for president.

 

[ninjabot]

An economist might also think that war is a good thing. Economic models are not a hard science, they are built on assumptions. When they think about the cost and benefits of fracking, they think along the lines of "ok, a ton more co2 means we need this much more water, that costs x dollars". They do not take into account that there might not be enough water or that infrastructure gets destroyed by heat. That is why they can be very misleading.

Sure, and maybe they're wrong about things like that. I was just asking you what these people, who seemingly influence the masses concerned with how much is being spent/will be spent/should be spent, are gonna think about your take on fracking. It's a rhetorical question though, we already know what the response from these people is thanks to the recent election.

Then why is it wrong of me to risk losing an election when fighting for something that is both right and sufficient instead of supporting something that is wrong and insufficient? It is better and even if there might be a victim that wouldnt be there if a Republican had not won, then why is me worrying more about the big picture wrong but you worrying more about yourself is right?

Well that's jumping the gun and assuming you've done the work to make that assertion. To say that it's wrong (I'll give you insufficient. Incrementalism is definitionally insufficient because it's about getting to a point eventually). You don't know if it's wrong though. You think it's wrong. That's why I mentioned "demonstrable". You can't demonstrably prove to me that losing to the opportunistic authoritarian Republicans is a good thing that will pay off in the end. I CAN demonstrate to you that it's objectively the wrong thing to do by BOTH our moral standards (and I don't even believe in objective morality) by simply allowing you to watch what happens to America in the upcoming 4 years, and also by bringing up all of the negative things that happened in Trump's first term. You're risking our future on a chance, not on a guaranteed outcome. You're relying on faith: the emotional conviction that you will successfully get your political aspirations to succeed as long as you can forsake the good for the perfect and hold out hope. Meanwhile, the evil will exploit the chance you gave them and potentially do irreparable harm. That's what you're saying you're comfortable with risking. Millions deported. Gay marriage next on the chopping block. Abortion gone not quite completely yet, but not impossible. Schools strongarmed into no longer teaching about the racist past of America. Anti DEI policies (I don't even know what the fuck that means, but it sounds super racist). Worse climate change thanks to Trump's "drill baby drill" bullshit.

These reasons aren't cumulative enough for you to say "Okay well maybe we save this stuff til it's safe to take chances."?

Also: it's not me worrying about myself. Humanist doesn't just mean I'm exclusively concerned with what happens to me. It means I care about all of humanity. I'm not pro-choice because it makes me feel good to gloat about it. I'm not pro-LGBTQ because I'm a member of them. I'm not pro-gun regulation because I hate guns. I'm not pro free healthcare because I'm in medical debt, and I'm not pro-immigration because I'm an immigrant. I hold all these stances because my morals are based on empathy and reason, and there are few Republican policies that I can say match that.

I risk losing an election while fighting for the right thing because I know that substantially more victims will follow if we keep fighting for the less wrong thing.

You should do that if you think it's right... I think you're wrong though, by your own moral standard, because you're throwing people under the bus in the pursuit of your paradise. And I think that's illogical and immoral.

Personally, if every single american state, by some sheer divine intervention, every relevant legislative body would be run by democrats for 10 years, then america would still be drifting into a dystopia just the same because they still wouldnt pass the necessary reforms to stop that. 10 years down the line, they would get toppled one after another and the fascists come back with more vigor without a lot of humanist accomplishments being done.

Would you disagree with that? If so, why?

Yeah, I do disagree with that because historically I've got nothing to go on to say that this level of power wouldn't result in more significant/lasting change in the hands of the Dems. I know of no point in American history where Democrats had nearly unchecked political and social/cultural power at the same time the way MAGA does now. I can bring up achievements accomplished by the Democratic party though and use that as justification for my confidence in them.

Democratic Party Achievements, Benefits and Programs — Monroe County PA Democrats

Use this space to add a brief description of your project.

www.monroepadems.com

�

Democratic Party Achievements, Benefits and Programs
19th Amendment	Women's right to vote
Apollo 11	First manned moon mission
Social Security	Social insurance program
Medicare	Health insurance for seniors
NATO	North Atlantic Treaty Organization – the political and military alliance between the US, Canada and Europe
Medicaid	Health care program for low income people
Securities and Exchange Act Law	Oversee the trading of securities and protect investors
Rural Electrification Act	Federal loans for the installation of electricity to serve rural areas
Peace Corps	American volunteers promoting friendship, goodwill and peace around the world
Unemployment Benefits	Temporary payments to the unemployed
Fair Labor Standards Act	Ending the cruel practice of child labor
Servicemen's Readjustment Act	The GI Bill, which has benefited millions of returning soldiers
Federal Home Loan Program	Guaranteed loans that allowed millions of Americans to become homeowners
National Industrial Recovery Act	8 hour workday, minimum wage, paid overtime, and the right to collective bargaining
National School Lunch Act	Free or low-cost meals for children who might otherwise go hungry
Voting Rights Act	Prohibits discrimination in voting
National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis	Forerunner of the March of Dimes
Head Start Program	Comprehensive services for low income families
Civil Rights Act	Prohibits discrimination and protects civil rights
Marshall Plan European Recovery Act	Rebuilt a secure and peaceful Europe after World War II
Financial Aid for Higher Education Loans	Guaranteed student loans that enabled over 50 million Americans to receive a college education
Family and Medical Leave Act	Temporary unpaid leave and job protection to employees – for qualified medical and family reasons
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act	Protect workers against pay discrimination
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act	Health care reform: Preventive care screening, lower prescription drug costs, protection for pre-existing conditions among many other benefits
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021	Pandemic recovery, economic stimulus payments, free vaccines, funeral expense assistance, expanded child tax credits, block grants for schools, funds for small business and many other benefits

Good shit. Among this list are things that we can't imagine not having. Things that will last presumably forever. Things that represent lasting change, and they were accomplished not through radical action. They make a cumulative case for incrementalism.

All Right. Imma throw my wager in the ring.

AOC - (Michelle) Obama.

How’s that for a ticket?

Michelle won’t have to take too much of the spotlight, and she can offset some of AOC’s firebrand politics. Plus, she can be seen as the wise, chill mentor to her fiery progressive politics.

I mean I'm blue no matter who, so there ain't many tickets you can post that I'd disagree with. I do love both Michelle and AOC though so it'd feel less like a chore and more like a privilege.

I'm down.

I would be absolutely thrilled by an AOC run and I could also see her winning. That would be a candidate that I know is probably going to disappoint some of her voters, but that I would legitimately see as a good consensus option.

At least as long as she is not watering down her stances the second she runs for president.

I legitimately think she's already doing that, but I agree. I'd be down for an AOC presidency.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2025, Original Post Date: Jan 15, 2025 ---

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 15, 2025 ---