American Politics XII: We Can Do Bad All By Ourselves

[Blargoblarg]

Hmm, as for the poll, I'm not really sure: my brain tells me Oz but my gut tells me Barnette. If only there was some more polling to see...

I picked Oz because there are a lot of people who will vote a celebrity candidate just because they're not a traditional politician.

[Zurkerx]

Hmm, as for the poll, I'm not really sure: my brain tells me Oz but my gut tells me Barnette. If only there was some more polling to see...

I picked Oz because there are a lot of people who will vote a celebrity candidate just because they're not a traditional politician.

That is true: tis how we got Trump. However, there is some major backlash to Trump's endorsement from the MAGA community although it was the same for Vance and he won comfortably. I'm torn between Oz and Barnette.

I do feel, however, of the three contenders, McCormick is the best to take on Fetterman. Fetterman I feel is honestly the strongest the Democrats can nominate nationally. Oz is a celebrity but I can't see him beating a popular LT. Governor. And Barnette would be an opposition researcher's dream: Republicans are trying to kill her momentum but it might be too late.

[San Lumen]

I picked Oz because there are a lot of people who will vote a celebrity candidate just because they're not a traditional politician.

That is true: tis how we got Trump. However, there is some major backlash to Trump's endorsement from the MAGA community although it was the same for Vance and he won comfortably. I'm torn between Oz and Barnette.

I do feel, however, of the three contenders, McCormick is the best to take on Fetterman. Fetterman I feel is honestly the strongest the Democrats can nominate nationally. Oz is a celebrity but I can't see him beating a popular LT. Governor. And Barnette would be an opposition researcher's dream: Republicans are trying to kill her momentum but it might be too late.

The same goes for Doug Mastriano whose running for Governor.

[Zurkerx]

That is true: tis how we got Trump. However, there is some major backlash to Trump's endorsement from the MAGA community although it was the same for Vance and he won comfortably. I'm torn between Oz and Barnette.

I do feel, however, of the three contenders, McCormick is the best to take on Fetterman. Fetterman I feel is honestly the strongest the Democrats can nominate nationally. Oz is a celebrity but I can't see him beating a popular LT. Governor. And Barnette would be an opposition researcher's dream: Republicans are trying to kill her momentum but it might be too late.

The same goes for Doug Mastriano whose running for Governor.

Huh, last I checked, Barletta was leading but it seems Mastriano took the lead. This guy is a far-right Christian Nationalist spewing QAnon. He's colonel that helped bus people to the Jan 6th event. And he's from fucking New Brunswick, NJ...

That would make Shapiro's life much easier.

[The Jamesian Republic]

The same goes for Doug Mastriano whose running for Governor.

Huh, last I checked, Barletta was leading but it seems Mastriano took the lead. This guy is a far-right Christian Nationalist spewing QAnon. He's colonel that helped bus people to the Jan 6th event. And he's from fucking New Brunswick, NJ...

That would make Shapiro's life much easier.

Christian and QANON are antonyms.

[Ifreann]

Huh, last I checked, Barletta was leading but it seems Mastriano took the lead. This guy is a far-right Christian Nationalist spewing QAnon. He's colonel that helped bus people to the Jan 6th event. And he's from fucking New Brunswick, NJ...

That would make Shapiro's life much easier.

Christian and QANON are antonyms.

No they aren't.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Christian and QANON are antonyms.

No they aren't.

How so?

[Ifreann]

No they aren't.

How so?

In that Q anon is a largely Christian apocalypse cult.

[The Jamesian Republic]

How so?

In that Q anon is a largely Christian apocalypse cult.

With Trump and friends playing the roles.

[Port Caverton]

You underestimate the power of the MIC. They will never let right-wing populists carry their isolationist BS into government. Why do you think Trump went in with a nationalist rhetoric just to stay in forever wars and increase drone strikes? They're just gonna eventually sell out to the lockheed martin stock.

They can't defy gravity. Controlling domestic politics is different from still being able to control battlefields all over the world, and for that matter, contemporary "isolationist" right-wing politics aren't necessarily opposed to overseas war or the profit incentives of the MIC-- they're opposed to the international diplomatic structures that prop up our sphere of influence and opposed to the allies who lend us outsized clout and legitimacy around the globe. Those same allies see we're an increasingly unreliable and inconsistent partner and that they're living in a dangerous world with less room for such constant dramatics. The prognosis for American influence overseas isn't immediately fatal, but it's not good.

Nothing will change except for the fact that abortion will be gone in some states.

Do you really think that's gonna be it...?

Plus the US is already an oligarchy.

At least at the moment it still has some substantively democratic characteristics, though; the model of oligarchy being advanced by our reactionaries is considerably more extreme, as I know you know.

Also the baby formula is short in stock because of an infection in it. They'll just increase imports and by June 27 the problem will be gone.

...

Like Therm said you don't actually care about anyone getting killed

Why would not wanting to get myself killed mean I don't care about other people getting killed? And again, this whole thing started over discussion of what is for now a purely hypothetical campaign of political assassinations, so I think we're going to have to define some terms here so you can insult me more specifically than this.

if you're just going to leave on whim

I explicitly said I'm not going to do it on a whim. Like, multi-year-timescale consideration of work and visas, and this whole conversation started because I expressed that mass assassinations of local officials might be enough to prompt me to fully commit to that path. Did you read back at all, or did seeing anyone mention leaving the US just set off the ol' patriot alarm and you decided to just jump in with some strawmen without any context?

(even thought it's pretty obvious that in the end you'll stay)

Why is that obvious, to you?

to Belgium or New Zealand.

I mean, not necessarily those countries?

You're just like those histrionic libs on Twitter that said that they would leave the US when trump got elected but never did.

Am I suggesting I'll flee the country like the feds were coming after me just because there's an election upset...? No, I'm saying emigration is something I think about, and that mass political assassinations would definitely be enough to get me to expedite the shit out of that process.

The US will continue on while you go on rants about how it "no no it will collapse this time and I will leave on a whim" rants.

As far as I can see you're the one ranting-- what are you talking about? "It will collapse 'this' time," leaving "on a whim"-- all I did was give a brief summary of my medium-term view of America's future political development and suggest it was encouraging me to look at moving overseas, and you're immediately seething about random libs who posted about going to Canada like six years ago because they were mad Hillary lost?

Man doomers truly suck.

I'm just as bothered by people who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand about obvious ongoing political and climatological changes simply because they find them scary, rather than accepting them and trying to nonetheless find ways to build thriving imaginaries of the future and happy lives for themselves and their communities. They're not so different from "doomers," really, in my experience-- the reality of the future we can all see we've built for ourselves is too scary to process, so they just try to shut down discussion of it to avoid real consideration of where they fit into it. In the case of the doomers, they do this by wildly catastrophizing: any negative developments will lead straight to extinction, or at least to mass death on inescapably huge scales, within their lifetimes; the future is rendered lifeless, utterly hopeless, and therefore unworthy of any meaningful consideration, thought, or planning. In the case of the ostriches, they do this by stubbornly dismissing: negative developments now won't have major consequences in the future, despite all indications to the contrary, and things won't really change much; the future will just be the present with new music and weird clothes, and is thereby flattened into equal unworthiness of consideration, thought, or planning. In each case, there is nothing to plan for in the future, no meaningful new questions to think about, no changes to society that we'll be forced to significantly adapt and change our lives to: we'll either be dead/scavenging, in the former case, or basically living as we are now, in the latter case. And really, is stasis that much different from death? Each position is paralyzed by its fear of the future, so it imagines there is no future as a reassurance.

If you think I fit into the "wild catastrophization" box, I guess that's your prerogative, but I really don't think I do, which in turn leads me towards placing you and other people who have such strong reactions to any discussion of how to personally deal with less-than-ideal future conditions in the "stubborn dismissal" box. The most terrifying and liberating thought of all is that there is a future, and that it's probably stranger and bloodier and sexier and more confusing than anyone can fully foresee right now. The US being in deep shit is just a small part of it that we can get a fairly good sense of already.

The US far-right are chinese shills so they're not really interested in anything overseas as long as Xi keeps giving them money. Also don't you think that our allies would have increased their defense spending even more if they expected the US to fold soon? Because most don't even meet the 2% or we give 'em some money like in the case of Israel and Ukraine.

tbh I don't see major changes outside the most conservative states.

I mean if you really think that you are to get killed because the US was going to inevitably turn into a far-right oligarchy, then why didn't you start to pack your bags sooner? It doesn't make sense, it just seems as if you didn't care about anything that happened and then you just woke up and saw some bad news so you decide to leave on a whim. Not to mention that you wouldn't even leave in the first place because a) The US does become a far-right oligarchy like you claim and you get sent to Gitmo before you get the papers or b) the process is too long/expensive for you and so you stay since nothing ever happened. So yes, you do fit into the "Wild catastrophization" box.

Plus no assasinations have happened yet and the gov is likely trying to maintain stability.

Also other than a good chunk of humans getting wiped off in a few decades due to climate change, I really don't see major changes until then imo.

[Ostroeuropa]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

[Port Caverton]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Massive Dem L

[Shrillland]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Massive Dem L

I don't know about massive yet, but certainly considerable.

[Vassenor]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

So what do you suggest the party do about it?

[Washington Resistance Army]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

So what do you suggest the party do about it?

Literally anything would be a good start lol. Don't get me wrong I want to kick Russia's ass as much as the next person but people are still pissed over student debt and all that.

[Thermodolia]

So what do you suggest the party do about it?

Literally anything would be a good start lol. Don't get me wrong I want to kick Russia's ass as much as the next person but people are still pissed over student debt and all that.

Now WRA we can’t rock the boat. Can’t do anything too crazy.

So let’s just create the Space Force National Guard instead.


It’s time like these that I wish the Dems where as devious and far left as the GOP claims they are

[Zurkerx]

We accepting polling yet?

Congress poll;
Republicans: 45.5

Democrats: 42.9

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... ic-ballot/

Massive Dem L

It'll be a big loss for Dems but I wouldn't go as far to call it a massive loss. To put it in perspective, I believe Republicans were leading by at least 5+ points (I think the average was 8 points) and they won 63 seats in the 2010 Elections, the biggest sweep since 1938- and that was with less gerrymandered maps.

Now, as it stands, I feel Democrats will lose 25-30 seats minimum but it can get as bad as 40. They won't be blown out like in 2010 but they will take a big hit.

[Zurkerx]

So what do you suggest the party do about it?

Literally anything would be a good start lol. Don't get me wrong I want to kick Russia's ass as much as the next person but people are still pissed over student debt and all that.

Let's assume Biden goes through with his promise of cutting $10,000 of student loan debt per borrower. Would that at least get some people to turn out? The smarter move would be to go for $50,000 and just try but knowing Biden, he'll do the $10,000 I feel. Whether that's enough though remains to be seen.

[Maineiacs]

Literally anything would be a good start lol. Don't get me wrong I want to kick Russia's ass as much as the next person but people are still pissed over student debt and all that.

Now WRA we can’t rock the boat. Can’t do anything too crazy.

So let’s just create the Space Force National Guard instead.


It’s time like these that I wish the Dems where as devious and far left as the GOP claims they are

Or to the Left at all.

[Gravlen]

Texas Supreme Court strikes down a statewide injunction barring child abuse investigations for families that provide gender-affirming care, but affirms the injunction as it pertains only to the one family that sued. This means Texas is free to resume child abuse investigations into families that provide gender-affirming care except for the family that sued.

The court also rules that Gov. Abbott did not have the power to require the state's child-welfare agency to investigate gender care as abuse.

[Sordhau]

Now WRA we can’t rock the boat. Can’t do anything too crazy.

So let’s just create the Space Force National Guard instead.


It’s time like these that I wish the Dems where as devious and far left as the GOP claims they are

Or to the Left at all.

Remember kids, Leftism is when you support a war of aggression against a sovereign nation under false pretenses on the behalf of oil corporations. This was merely the first step in the 5 15 50 Year Plan, comrades!

[Gravlen]

Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

[Forsher]

Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

So, if you were, say, a Texan pride politician running a social media website and had a filter that changed Tex-arse/Texass/Texarse/Tex-ass to Texas you would be liable to be sued?

[The Jamesian Republic]

Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

When do we bring democracy to Texas?

[Gravlen]

Texas appeals court reinstated blatantly unconstitutional Texas social media law without explanation.

So… what does this mean? Well, Texas is now a mess for any social media company. Operating in Texas and daring to do something as basic as stopping harassment and abuse on your platform now opens you up to significant litigation and potential fines. It strips editorial discretion, the right to cultivate your own community, and much much more that is fundamentally necessary to running a website with 3rd party content.

The Texas law forces social media companies to operate in Texas (on threat of lawsuits for geographic censorship), and allows them to be sued for every possible moderation decision.

What does that mean in practice? First, even if there is a good and justifiable reason for moderating the content — say it’s spam or harassment or inciting violence — that really doesn’t matter. The user can simply claim that it’s because of their viewpoints — even those expressed elsewhere — and force the company to fight it out in court.

There's a lot of other goodies in this law, like how it makes a lot of spam filtering illegal.

So, if you were, say, a Texan pride politician running a social media website and had a filter that changed Tex-arse/Texass/Texarse/Tex-ass to Texas you would be liable to be sued?

If the site has a certain amount of daily users - yes.