I've been shushing people who say there won't be free #elections in the #USA anymore
Uncategorized
96
Posts
30
Posters
223
Views
-
if enough showed the fuck up, all of that would be working for us
that the democratic party does not, and serves spineless centrists, is a direct consequence of not enough showing up to vote
what i'm saying is that this organizational inertia argument is real, as you say, but it's essentially nothing but a reflection of our will. *if* we show the fuck up
bad candidates do not lead to low voter turn out
well, they do, but more accurately:
low voter turn out leads to bad candidates
@benroyce It's a bit like that, sure, but it would take a long time of everyone showing up to vote to actually make a difference. I can't imagine the DNC as it exists now, allowing candidates more left wing than AOC or Omar. There's only so much voters can do with the system that exists, and that turns people off voting. Personally, I'm a strong proponent of compulsory voting. Don't just make it easier to vote, make it harder not to.
-
@benroyce It's a bit like that, sure, but it would take a long time of everyone showing up to vote to actually make a difference. I can't imagine the DNC as it exists now, allowing candidates more left wing than AOC or Omar. There's only so much voters can do with the system that exists, and that turns people off voting. Personally, I'm a strong proponent of compulsory voting. Don't just make it easier to vote, make it harder not to.
right but imagining something better is easy. delivering on it takes sustained effort. so we have to fucking vote
it's a nasty analogy but it's true:
MAGA took over the Republicans. called centrist Republicans "RINOs" (Republicans in name only). hollowed out the shitty party and made it something much more shitty: fascism
we can take over and remake the dems as well
it's a shitty analogy because i hate any comparison to MAGA but it's a demonstration that sustained voting works
-
@benroyce @rupert @Asbestos This is why you prepare to fight no matter who wins the election. In the election itself you are attempting to choose the weakest of several opponents.
In 2016, nobody thought Trump could actually win. Problem was, Trump and Hillery Clinton were BOTH candidates considered "unelectable" by conventional wisdom. If two unelectable candidates face each other in a US style general electio, both of them become electable folks!
Right up to Nov 8 2016, we were all preparing to fight Hillery Clinton and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. We all hoped to hell Trump was stopped, but we knew we'd still have a tough fight ahead no matter what. That TPP may have benefited Trump: both candidates claimed to oppose it (a big win for the anti-WTO movement), but many white working class US voters expected Hillery to go back on her word. Obama had been a big booster of this treaty, chock full of the usual GMO, drug patent, and even US cigarette export provisions promoted by USTR.
The other big fight was Standing Rock, we had already sunk the Keystone XL. Heroes stood their ground at Standing Rock and slowed the project to a crawl as the world looked on. We had it beat, it was to be another KXL.
Then we got the worst possible surprise: Trump "won" the election! Instantly Standing Rock become almost impossible to win. The TPP was gone, but a vicious campaign of racism and hate was coming. On top of all else, Trump packed the Supreme Court, putting in cronies like "Frat Boy" Kavanagh and "Handmaid" Amy Coney Barrett. "Witchburner" Samuel Alito was already there thanks to GW Bush.
A year and a half after Trump left office post J6, Trump's SCOTUS picks threw out Roe V Wade. The resulting abortion laws were quickly castrated by the abortion pill networks, but this decision also unleashed a wave of anti-LGBTQ hate that is still going on today.
I think a lot of us in 2016 were looking downfield at the end zone without first having the football caught and securely tucked away prior to taking off running.
@benroyce @rupert @Asbestos @LukefromDC thank you, yes, as someone who's been a pragmatic movement person for years...yes
I had some serious fights with the Biden administration, I know they weren't my friends
but they also resourced some things I found extremely useful, as opposed to this "knock everything over and piss on it" strategy we saw last year from the feds
-
right but imagining something better is easy. delivering on it takes sustained effort. so we have to fucking vote
it's a nasty analogy but it's true:
MAGA took over the Republicans. called centrist Republicans "RINOs" (Republicans in name only). hollowed out the shitty party and made it something much more shitty: fascism
we can take over and remake the dems as well
it's a shitty analogy because i hate any comparison to MAGA but it's a demonstration that sustained voting works
@benroyce Ooh, I'll disagree with "imagining something better is easy" it seems like it *should* be, but it doesn't seem to be in practice, especially if we say that Democrats are as left wing as we can hope for. We settle for the Democrats because that's the best of what's currently available, but we need to be telling them that we're not happy with them as they currently stand. I want to vote for actually progressive candidates, not just for the people who aren't literally evil.
-
@benroyce Ooh, I'll disagree with "imagining something better is easy" it seems like it *should* be, but it doesn't seem to be in practice, especially if we say that Democrats are as left wing as we can hope for. We settle for the Democrats because that's the best of what's currently available, but we need to be telling them that we're not happy with them as they currently stand. I want to vote for actually progressive candidates, not just for the people who aren't literally evil.
two things:
1. i was directly referencing your suggestion for compulsory voting. i agree. and? well to get it we have to show the fuck up. idea -> action. however easy or not the idea is is meaningless without the action
2. "we need to be telling them that we're not happy with them as they currently stand." right. but what is that? whining online or writing emails that get canned fake responses? that "telling" your referring to is our vote. vote them the fuck out. that's telling them
-
I've been shushing people who say there won't be free #elections in the #USA anymore
#Cynicism leads to #prematureCapitulation: "if the #vote is corrupt, why vote"
Americans are lazy about voting as it is. Weak whiny "the sky is falling!" statements just because malicious intent exists is enough to make some give up
Besides, elections are controlled by the states
On that note (they won't succeed):
"#Trump urges #Republicans to 'take over' and 'nationalize' voting"
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-urges-republicans-nationalize-voting/story?id=129793658
@benroyce If the election is corrupted, be ready for a lot of new recruits the day after election day! If you sow defeatism those recruits won't be coming as they will be resigned not pissed off and motivated.
-
@benroyce If the election is corrupted, be ready for a lot of new recruits the day after election day! If you sow defeatism those recruits won't be coming as they will be resigned not pissed off and motivated.
also if no one shows up to vote, and someone starts shooting: "why are they shooting? beats me. feds say it's terrorists. whatever"
but if we all show up to vote and the feds say "trump won a third term" we know it's bullshit. then when someone starts shooting in this scenario: "they're shooting because of the fascist lies! this is the fight! everyone join in!"
the vote provides the clarity of the people's will. without it, there is no clarity and all is lost
we have to vote
-
two things:
1. i was directly referencing your suggestion for compulsory voting. i agree. and? well to get it we have to show the fuck up. idea -> action. however easy or not the idea is is meaningless without the action
2. "we need to be telling them that we're not happy with them as they currently stand." right. but what is that? whining online or writing emails that get canned fake responses? that "telling" your referring to is our vote. vote them the fuck out. that's telling them
@benroyce
1. I agree with having to show up to get changes made. I brought it up because I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote for Democrats because they suck, a lot of non-voters (or third-party voters) think that way.2. I mean, for a start, by not calling them left wing. You can't vote people out, you can only vote people in, and the people running as Democrats are usually centrists. I literally can't tell them through voting because the people who represent my ideals aren't in the race.
-
@benroyce
1. I agree with having to show up to get changes made. I brought it up because I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote for Democrats because they suck, a lot of non-voters (or third-party voters) think that way.2. I mean, for a start, by not calling them left wing. You can't vote people out, you can only vote people in, and the people running as Democrats are usually centrists. I literally can't tell them through voting because the people who represent my ideals aren't in the race.
"a lot of non-voters (or third-party voters) think that way."
right because they're morons. of course the dems suck. because the morons don't vote
"You can't vote people out, you can only vote people in, and the people running as Democrats are usually centrists"
because no one shows up in the primaries. how did mamdani get in, despite no support from the dem org? because people showed the fuck up
people not voting is the *cause*, not the *effect*
-
"a lot of non-voters (or third-party voters) think that way."
right because they're morons. of course the dems suck. because the morons don't vote
"You can't vote people out, you can only vote people in, and the people running as Democrats are usually centrists"
because no one shows up in the primaries. how did mamdani get in, despite no support from the dem org? because people showed the fuck up
people not voting is the *cause*, not the *effect*
stop thinking of establishment dems as some alien omnipotent force that must be interacted with. in fact they're quite weak. just fucking ignore them
stop thinking of the establishment at all. you build it up to be this insurmountable enemy. it's an illusion that causes inaction
we show the fuck up in the primaries, and then we just own the joint. that's it
it all depends upon people showing the fuck up. beginning and ending of the topic
-
"a lot of non-voters (or third-party voters) think that way."
right because they're morons. of course the dems suck. because the morons don't vote
"You can't vote people out, you can only vote people in, and the people running as Democrats are usually centrists"
because no one shows up in the primaries. how did mamdani get in, despite no support from the dem org? because people showed the fuck up
people not voting is the *cause*, not the *effect*
@benroyce Yeah, I agree with all that. The only thing I really disagree with you on is calling the Democrats left-wing. I'd allow "center-left" but I'd still strongly disagree with that categorisation, they are center-right. Just being less right wing than the Nazis doesn't make them left, it just makes them less right.
-
This whole era has taught me so many on the right are ignorant bigots. Which you could say I should have known and I agree but I did expect more infighting and not such vast meek complicit silence from so called "patriotic conservatives" against obvious fascism
But also much more sadly many on the left are impotent spineless whiners who won't fight
Vote. Protest
Wringing your hands and paralyzed in mindless cynicism and toxic idealism is just pure loser
Swedish comedian and singer (and general mensch) Ronny Eriksson once joked about the difference between pessimists and optimists. When the pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse than this!" the optimist answers: "Yes it can!"
I thought about this quote a lot when I saw american progressives talking about not voting in the last election. Or Swedish leftists talking about that who is the american president doesn't matter.
-
@benroyce Yeah, I agree with all that. The only thing I really disagree with you on is calling the Democrats left-wing. I'd allow "center-left" but I'd still strongly disagree with that categorisation, they are center-right. Just being less right wing than the Nazis doesn't make them left, it just makes them less right.
there is an ideological center and two parties to either side of it
that this is all much further right than we both want has no meaning. there is a left, because it is the left-er choice
to make it further left, we show up, we sustain, we iterate
there is no other option, and bemoaning things are so far right has no effective or actionable point, and in fact leads to inaction and stasis
it is like this, because the left doesn't fucking vote
-
there is an ideological center and two parties to either side of it
that this is all much further right than we both want has no meaning. there is a left, because it is the left-er choice
to make it further left, we show up, we sustain, we iterate
there is no other option, and bemoaning things are so far right has no effective or actionable point, and in fact leads to inaction and stasis
it is like this, because the left doesn't fucking vote
-
there is an ideological center and two parties to either side of it
that this is all much further right than we both want has no meaning. there is a left, because it is the left-er choice
to make it further left, we show up, we sustain, we iterate
there is no other option, and bemoaning things are so far right has no effective or actionable point, and in fact leads to inaction and stasis
it is like this, because the left doesn't fucking vote
@benroyce It's not bemoaning things to call the democrats center-right. I'm still voting for them because to do otherwise it's ludicrous. I just disagree with calling them something they're not. Political left and political right are not relative, they have definite meanings and the Democrats simply do not qualify as left wing. That's not to say that they can't become left, the Republicans switched sides after all, but right now they aren't.
-
stop thinking of establishment dems as some alien omnipotent force that must be interacted with. in fact they're quite weak. just fucking ignore them
stop thinking of the establishment at all. you build it up to be this insurmountable enemy. it's an illusion that causes inaction
we show the fuck up in the primaries, and then we just own the joint. that's it
it all depends upon people showing the fuck up. beginning and ending of the topic
You might find this article interesting. It shows how compulsory voting in Australia led to policy shifts in government that benefited those on low incomes, pretty much vindicating everything you've been saying about why high voter turnout matters so much.
-
Swedish comedian and singer (and general mensch) Ronny Eriksson once joked about the difference between pessimists and optimists. When the pessimist says: "It can't possibly get any worse than this!" the optimist answers: "Yes it can!"
I thought about this quote a lot when I saw american progressives talking about not voting in the last election. Or Swedish leftists talking about that who is the american president doesn't matter.
@jorny @benroyce @em_and_future_cats
i am that optimist.
😊
😢 -
@benroyce It's not bemoaning things to call the democrats center-right. I'm still voting for them because to do otherwise it's ludicrous. I just disagree with calling them something they're not. Political left and political right are not relative, they have definite meanings and the Democrats simply do not qualify as left wing. That's not to say that they can't become left, the Republicans switched sides after all, but right now they aren't.
Again you're asserting a 20,000 ft view rather than the functional reality. The dems are the left because they are to the left. Whether they are to the left of authoritarian mass murder or to the left of redistribution of billionaire's assets has no meaning
You're accurate in your words but your words lead to no functionality. The functional position is to use language that describes how it is, not how it should be. We can begin to move to how it should when our language is functional
-
You might find this article interesting. It shows how compulsory voting in Australia led to policy shifts in government that benefited those on low incomes, pretty much vindicating everything you've been saying about why high voter turnout matters so much.
Thank you
-
@StarkRG @benroyce Pleasure. And since this is getting boosted a lot, I'll repeat what I said to you before: I know hardcore anarchists - the sort who think all top-down power structures (including the state itself) should be completely dismantled, and the only real democracy is grassroots and community-led - who 👉🏼still vote👈🏼, because they recognise that however broken the current system may be, keeping the far right out of government, both locally and nationally, is still hugely important!
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@lelevup Non ne ero a conoscenza fino all'annuncio del TG...
-
@KSGamingLife Mi fate venire voglia di modificare la Wii (e già era tra i piani insieme alle altre console).
-
@antonuzzo1 la repressione è sempre anche una grande opportunità di rilancio. Hanno chiuso e stanno chiudendo i centri sociali, quasi tutti di sinistra. È una grande opportunità di riportare la politica e l'attivismo in ogni altro angolo della vita sociale: strade, piazze, scuole, università... I centri sociali fanno parte di una storia e un periodo che non c'è più, sono anche più facili da controllare. Voglio vedere cosa faranno quando il dissenso si articolerà in ogni cellula sociale.
-
Il punto, per me, è che non basta denunciare la deriva: serve anche ricostruire una cittadinanza che non accetti passivamente questi tentativi. Altrimenti continueremo a oscillare tra indignazione e rassegnazione, senza mai incidere davvero
-
Sulle priorità investigative: è vero che ciclicamente qualcuno prova a rimettere mano all’indipendenza dell’azione penale, ma questo dimostra quanto sia fragile l’equilibrio tra potere politico e potere giudiziario. Ogni volta che si tenta di spostare quell’equilibrio, lo si fa sempre con la scusa dell’efficienza, mai ammettendo apertamente il rischio di interferenze.
-
@G3rt Capisco il quadro che descrivi, ma secondo me c’è un punto che spesso sfugge: se davvero da trent’anni si restringono gli spazi democratici, allora il problema non è solo “chi governa”, ma un’intera cultura politica che ha smesso di pretendere trasparenza, competenza e responsabilità.
La retorica della “stabilità” funziona proprio perché una parte consistente della popolazione è stata educata a considerare la partecipazione come un fastidio, non come un diritto.
-
Lo avevo pubblicato tempo fa. Lo ripubblico, perché credo sia una delle conferenze più chiare e schiette del prof. Canfora che dice molto di ciò che stiamo vivendo e che ancora ci aspetta.
-
@antonuzzo1 ... fa parte di un processo di limitazione progressiva degli spazi di democrazia che dura da più di trent'anni, non so se hai presente cosa sono riusciti a fare già con la legge sulla sicurezza.
Per governare e consegnare il Paese ai giochi commerciali gli serve stabilità, cioè gente rassegnata che nemmeno ci prova a contestare. Che continuino. A furia di reprimere si stanno costruendo la frusta per le loro chiappe.
