Conservatism

[Joey D]

What are Democrats doing to victimise and marginalise people of colour, BIPOC and pregnant women right now?

Honestly, I think they are exploiting them to raise money for the midterms. Here's just one example:

Democrats swiftly raised $80M after court overturned Roe

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the first week after the Supreme Court stripped away a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion , Democrats and aligned groups raised more than $80 million, a tangible early sign that the ruling may energize voters .

apnews.com

Past that, I don't really think they're doing anything to help any of those people. While they might support change, I don't think they actually want it because giving the illusion of it means they can keep their jobs and raise money. It's why I'm guessing most Republican politicians didn't want Roe v. Wade overturned, it was a good money maker for them.

 

[Scaff]

@TexRex:

He said “the red tape” issue.

@Scaff

The EPA has plenty of funding already. Funding wasn’t the issue. MORE funding wouldn’t fix the problem, so no need to vote for it.

FDA in this case, and do you have a source that this specific case didn't require additional funding?

And the larger issue that you are missing is this: at the bottom of it, both parties are ideologically the same, because both favor authoritarian government with excessive regulation and lack of due process and proper legislative procedure.

Once they pit themselves that way against the citizens they allegedly ‘serve’, what particular flavor of authoritarianism they prefer is secondary in comparison.

That requires what is an astounding level of reductionism to reach a point of being able to claim parity.

I'm not sure it was red tape, but the shortage was certainly made worse by the government being completely useless. The FDA had known about the potential issue for months before it decided to actually do anything. If it had acted in October/November when the complaint was first made with them, it probably would've helped, or at the very least prevented babies from dying. And really, had the FDA actually kept up on inspections, it probably would've never reached that point in the first place.

The regulatory agencies in the US often give off the impression they are there to protect people, but they're pretty ineffective and lots of things slip through the cracks. More than a handful of companies work on a cost/benefit ratio too where it's sometimes just cheaper to let people get sick, injured, or die than it is to just fix the problem. These agencies are supposed to protect us from that, but they don't do a very good job. Then politicians make laws where it makes it difficult to pursue civil action against those companies.

They do a better job than if they didn't exist, and most are coming off the back of four years of GOP gutting.

This is part of the reason I buy into the whole "both sides are the same" argument. The only thing the Democrats have over the Republicans is that they didn't and still aren't trying to overthrow the US government. That's a pretty low bar.

Its a bloody enormous difference and alone is enough to dismiss a 'no different' argument.

Past that, Democrat and Republican politicians only have their own self-interests in mind and can be influenced by money. I'm not saying other parties wouldn't do this, but since we've never really tried it, I can't say for sure. I'd at least like to try it and see because maybe someone with a different political philosophy would be better, even if only a tiny bit.

How they get the money is different though as are the issues they pretend to take up. But at the end of the day, it just comes back to getting money and the politicians doing the bare minimum to keep their job. Washington is full of ridiculous corrupt career politicians that don't give a single, solitary damn about their constituents unless, of course, that constituent writes them a big check.

Once again a massive amount of reductionism in action, a look at a state by state comparison of education, health outcomes, hell, even approaches to the rights of citizens paints a very clear difference between the two.

 

[Joey D]

They do a better job than if they didn't exist, and most are coming off the back of four years of GOP gutting.

Yes, that's true, they're better than nothing. However, my gripe is that they lull people into a false sense of security where they aren't questioning these companies. "The government will protect me" isn't something people should rely on. In a perfect world, sure the government would protect its citizens, but the US government has shown time and time again that it just doesn't care to.

And while the GOP did gut those agencies under Trump, they've been pretty bad for years. I mostly work with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) since they deal with health systems and they're terrible. They were terrible under Obama, they were terrible under Trump, and they're still terrible under Biden. The CDC is one of the few agencies that I directly work with that got worse under Trump. While I don't think they were stellar, they were at least OK under Obama and did prove effective with H1N1, Zika, Ebola, and SARS. Under Trump's administration, the team that was supposed to watch out for newly emerging viruses was either axed completely or greatly reduced (it's be a while, I can't honestly remember). That likely led to the explosion of COVID.

Granted, this is all anecdotal though based on who I work with.

Its a bloody enormous difference and alone is enough to dismiss a 'no different' argument.

Yes, not overthrowing the US government is a big difference, but my point is that the US politicians shouldn't be actively trying to overthrow the government in the first place. I'm not going to praise a group for doing what they're supposed to do.

Once again a massive amount of reductionism in action, a look at a state by state comparison of education, health outcomes, hell, even approaches to the rights of citizens paints a very clear difference between the two.

Reducing it down to its core though is how I view it. Democrats and Republicans only work for those who give them the biggest checks. They don't have the best interests of the constituents in mind and do the bare minimum to get by. Yes, some of that bare minimum results in better outcomes for people, but I truly don't believe that the Democrats are doing it to better the lives of the average person in their state. They were bribed, or rather had a large campaign contribution given, by someone (or a lobby group) that supports that.

I'm also not sure if better outcomes in states are because of politicians or because people with those ideologies tend to move to the states, which ultimately makes it better. I have no evidence of this, but if I were to make a guess, I would say the people moving to the states have a better overall influence than the politicians in that state. This is especially true if a wealthy person with those ideologies moves there and buys the politicians.

This is part of the reason I'm so disenfranchised with voting in general at the moment, so much so that I'm not even sure I should bother with the mid-terms. My realistic choices end up being a Republican that denies the election and wants to strip rights, or a Democrat that doesn't want to do anything and allows the Republicans to carry out their goals. Both are ineffective, both are harmful to the nation, both are weak, and both shouldn't be even considered for office. I hate that choices get boiled down to the lesser of two evils and while I do vote third party more often than not, I'm not oblivious to the fact that they don't really stand much of a chance in our current system.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, that's true, they're better than nothing. However, my gripe is that they lull people into a false sense of security where they aren't questioning these companies. "The government will protect me" isn't something people should rely on. In a perfect world, sure the government would protect its citizens, but the US government has shown time and time again that it just doesn't care to.

Indeed, however the approach the two parties take towards these agencies is different.

And while the GOP did gut those agencies under Trump, they've been pretty bad for years. I mostly work with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) since they deal with health systems and they're terrible. They were terrible under Obama, they were terrible under Trump, and they're still terrible under Biden.

Thats in my view, due to it being a system that simply doesn't work. I am happily and firmly biased towards the systems used by the rest of the developed world.

The CDC is one of the few agencies that I directly work with that got worse under Trump. While I don't think they were stellar, they were at least OK under Obama and did prove effective with H1N1, Zika, Ebola, and SARS. Under Trump's administration, the team that was supposed to watch out for newly emerging viruses was either axed completely or greatly reduced (it's be a while, I can't honestly remember). That likely led to the explosion of COVID.

Granted, this is all anecdotal though based on who I work with.

So, again, a noticeable difference.

Yes, not overthrowing the US government is a big difference, but my point is that the US politicians shouldn't be actively trying to overthrow the government in the first place. I'm not going to praise a group for doing what they're supposed to do.

This isn't about praise, it's about differentiation, and on that level is a difference that can't just be handwaved away.

Reducing it down to its core though is how I view it. Democrats and Republicans only work for those who give them the biggest checks. They don't have the best interests of the constituents in mind and do the bare minimum to get by. Yes, some of that bare minimum results in better outcomes for people, but I truly don't believe that the Democrats are doing it to better the lives of the average person in their state. They were bribed, or rather had a large campaign contribution given, by someone (or a lobby group) that supports that.

Is this based on actual subjective evidence?

I'm also not sure if better outcomes in states are because of politicians or because people with those ideologies tend to move to the states, which ultimately makes it better. I have no evidence of this, but if I were to make a guess, I would say the people moving to the states have a better overall influence than the politicians in that state. This is especially true if a wealthy person with those ideologies moves there and buys the politicians.

I would be more willing to accept that if the differences were not so stark.

This is part of the reason I'm so disenfranchised with voting in general at the moment, so much so that I'm not even sure I should bother with the mid-terms. My realistic choices end up being a Republican that denies the election and wants to strip rights, or a Democrat that doesn't want to do anything and allows the Republicans to carry out their goals. Both are ineffective, both are harmful to the nation, both are weak, and both shouldn't be even considered for office. I hate that choices get boiled down to the lesser of two evils and while I do vote third party more often than not, I'm not oblivious to the fact that they don't really stand much of a chance in our current system.

Don't get me wrong, that you only have, in effect, a binary choice is an absurd product of the US electoral system. Its a frustration I share, as the UK has a different but similarly absurd system. Both countries need a form of proportional representation to actually reflect the real views of the electorate.

That however isn't the point I'm arguing, rather that despite some similarities, there are more than enough differences between the two main US parties. To the degree, that without an absurd degree of reductionism, its misleading to claim ideological parity for them.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, not overthrowing the US government is a big difference, but my point is that the US politicians shouldn't be actively trying to overthrow the government in the first place.

So far the authoritarians have absolutely taken over only one party in the US, and actually used that party to try to take over the US government. It's possible that we could claim it has happened twice (Nixon) though comparisons to Nixon are favorable to Trump since what Nixon attempted is not as bad or direct. In both cases, the party used was the republican party. As far as I know, zero democrat presidents have come anywhere near the line of overthrowing the government*.

So if we're going to be talking about the success of authoritarians, let's put the credit where it's due - the republicans are currently overrun by an authoritarian movement, and seem particularly susceptible to it. I could go on to why that's the case too, republicans are way more into dehumanizing, but that's probably a topic for another time.


* On further thought, FDR potentially came near the line. I'll still say it was back of where Nixon and Trump ended up, because FDR basically got what he wanted and the nation continued.

 

[Joey D]

Is this based on actual subjective evidence?

In a concise study? I'm sure there is. Typically, in the past, I've looked at sites like Open Secrets to see who is buying whom since they do a decent enough job of tracking money the best they can. For the most part, the voting patterns of people in Congress align with who's doling them out money. Let's take Joe Manchin for example, whose top campaign contributors include oil, mining, natural gas, and coal, now let's look at his latest stonewalling:

Manchin Pulls Plug on Climate and Tax Talks, Shrinking Domestic Plan

The West Virginia Democrat’s decision dealt a crushing blow to President Biden’s domestic agenda, effectively ruling out action on anything beyond prescription drug pricing and health care subsidies.

www.nytimes.com

That however isn't the point I'm arguing, rather that despite some similarities, there are more than enough differences between the two main US parties. To the degree, that without an absurd degree of reductionism, its misleading to claim ideological parity for them.

I don't think it's misinformation though. I'm not attempting to present it as fact, only that I buy into the notion because of the things I listed. If it didn't come across that way, I apologize.

While there are some differences, the two parties are still very similar in my view since I wholeheartedly believe that they work for themselves and their donors, not the average citizen outside doing just enough to get them to vote for them. I posted one article from AP New about how much the Democrats raised in the week after Roe v Wade was overturned, it was $80 million. That alone makes me believe that the reason they never pushed to codify it was because they were making so much money off of it. I think the Republicans are going to see that overturning it was a bad idea because it will mean less money. It's the parties' best interest to have a conflict, actively rally against that conflict, and never really do anything about it.

I also think both parties are woefully out of touch with the average citizen too. I would say the average American citizen wants a job, things to cost a reasonable amount of money, and to go on with their life. Both parties don't want that though, they want to intervene in our lives and it's mostly through taking money from working people and spending it on pet projects. I'm not 100% against taxes, I am 100% against taxes being squandered though and both sides squander the hell out of tax dollars. Let people keep more of the money they work for and spend taxes on things that benefit the community as a whole instead of someone who wrote you a big check.

At the end of the day, it's probably better that I just don't vote since I don't really agree with most of the candidates. Even the Libertarian ones that I sometimes support aren't all that great and the party now has become infested with QAnon BS (at least the Utah and Michigan Libertarian wings).

 

[Danoff]

That alone makes me believe that the reason they never pushed to codify it was because they were making so much money off of it.

Really? I mean, they just pushed to codify it and they literally do not have the votes in the Senate. Even now. Filibuster or no.

At the end of the day, it's probably better that I just don't vote since I don't really agree with most of the candidates.

If you don't see a difference between the authoritarians in the republican party and what the democrats are up to, I don't know what to tell you. The signal by not voting is that you don't care about the difference, and I'm surprised that anyone, practically in the entire world, doesn't care about that difference.

 

[Joey D]

Really? I mean, they just pushed to codify it and they literally do not have the votes in the Senate. Even now.

Obama and the Congress that served with him had the majority but still didn't bother to pass the Freedom of Choice Act despite promising to do so.

If you don't see a difference between the authoritarians in the republican party and what the democrats are up to, I don't know what to tell you. The signal by not voting is that you don't care about the difference, and I'm surprised that anyone, practically in the entire world, doesn't care about that difference.

I mean I see that difference, but here's the thing, the Democrats are still letting it happen in my opinion. I know they don't have the votes to stop it in Congress at the moment, but they're not exactly going full force and drumming up their base. If anything, they're alienating parts of their base and breaking them apart. Here's an opinion piece from yesterday that talks about that.

Opinion: Progressives are practically doing Republicans' job for them | CNN

Paul Begala writes that Democrats need to stop attacking President Joe Biden and start redirecting their criticism toward the Republican Party, which is posing the biggest obstacle to women's rights, trans rights, climate change and democracy at large.

www.cnn.com

The Democrats need to work on being united and delivering some sort of unified message like the Republicans did by saying the election was rigged in 2020, just, you know, a truthful message. If people like Manchin and Sinema are left out, with a solid unification plan they can gain more seats in Congress to render those two senators moot. They don't seem to be doing this though, they are infighting and letting the Republican Party become more unified under the guise of whatever the hell it is they're pushing.

As for not voting, I'm starting to see less and less of a point too. Either I vote for a Republican who will strip away rights, I vote for a Democrat who will sit on their hands while Republicans strip away my rights, or I vote for a third party that I agree with but stands no chance of winning. For the longest time I've been voting for a third party that stands zero chance of winning, but I fear decent candidates from those parties are going to start to dry up. So I really do feel like I'm in a position that no matter who I vote for, rights are going to get strips away because either one party is going to actually do it or the other is just going to let it happen.

 

[Danoff]

Obama and the Congress that served with him had the majority but still didn't bother to pass the Freedom of Choice Act despite promising to do so.

Biden and the Congress that serves with him have the majority and CANNOT pass codification of Roe. Because they lack the votes. Are you telling me that you know that codification of Roe would have passed under Obama? This is absolutely a boggieman put forward by bad faith arguers. It could be true what you're arguing, but I've not seen the case made effectively.

I mean I see that difference, but here's the thing, the Democrats are still letting it happen in my opinion. I know they don't have the votes to stop it in Congress at the moment, but they're not exactly going full force and drumming up their base. If anything, they're alienating parts of their base and breaking them apart. Here's an opinion piece from yesterday that talks about that.

Opinion: Progressives are practically doing Republicans' job for them | CNN

Paul Begala writes that Democrats need to stop attacking President Joe Biden and start redirecting their criticism toward the Republican Party, which is posing the biggest obstacle to women's rights, trans rights, climate change and democracy at large.

www.cnn.com

The Democrats need to work on being united and delivering some sort of unified message like the Republicans did by saying the election was rigged in 2020, just, you know, a truthful message. If people like Manchin and Sinema are left out, with a solid unification plan they can gain more seats in Congress to render those two senators moot. They don't seem to be doing this though, they are infighting and letting the Republican Party become more unified under the guise of whatever the hell it is they're pushing.

Manchin is not up for vote in your particular state, and neither are most of those senators and congressional representatives. It's only on your plate to determine who to vote for on your own ballot. If there is a democrat running in your state, that democrat should not be judged based on the actions of some other democrat. If it's Biden, I have to say, I'd vote for Biden again, despite his age and some of his worst moments, if he's running against any of the current frontrunners (like DeSantis or Trump). That's not because I choose the lesser of two evils, it's because my vote says something and I'd want it to say that.

Either I vote for a Republican who will strip away rights, I vote for a Democrat who will sit on their hands while Republicans strip away my rights

I don't get this at all. What democrat are you talking about, Biden? Biden is not sitting on his hands, but his hands are somewhat tied. Manchin? You don't get to vote for Manchin.

For the longest time I've been voting for a third party that stands zero chance of winning, but I fear decent candidates from those parties are going to start to dry up. So I really do feel like I'm in a position that no matter who I vote for, rights are going to get strips away because either one party is going to actually do it or the other is just going to let it happen.

Voting is primarily about speech, and I think it has become and should be, for basically everyone, single-issue at this point. A vote (speech) for American democracy or a vote for authoritarianism. It's such a stark contrast, and such a real tangible issue, that I almost don't see how any vote right now can be about anything else.

During the rise of Nazi Germany, would you like to say you refrained from voting because, while Hitler had problems, his opponents weren't as eloquent or unified as you'd like?

 

[TexRex]

Biden and the Congress that serves with him have the majority and CANNOT pass codification of Roe. Because they lack the votes. Are you telling me that you know that codification of Roe would have passed under Obama? This is absolutely a boggieman put forward by bad faith arguers. It could be true what you're arguing, but I've not seen the case made effectively.

Democrats did eke by a filibuster-busting majority in the Senate (to say nothing of the positions of individual members) when the Freedom of Choice Act was on the docket, but then so were lots of things and without the benefit of hindsight, it was placed on the back burner to pursue other efforts.

 

[Danoff]

Democrats did eke by a filibuster-busting majority in the Senate (to say nothing of the positions of individual members) when the Freedom of Choice Act was on the docket, but then so were lots of things and without the benefit of hindsight, it was placed on the back burner to pursue other efforts.

I'm interested in knowing whether they literally had the votes.

 

[Joey D]

Biden and the Congress that serves with him have the majority and CANNOT pass codification of Roe. Because they lack the votes. Are you telling me that you know that codification of Roe would have passed under Obama? This is absolutely a boggieman put forward by bad faith arguers. It could be true what you're arguing, but I've not seen the case made effectively.

They had more of a majority then. The 111th Congress had upwards of 58 voting liberal Senators (two independents) and 255 in the House. From 2009-2011 they had a trifecta. I don't know all the political positions of all the Congressmen, but if they'd been truly serious about abortion rights as they are claiming, they could've made it happen back then. The Freedom of Choice Act wasn't even put to a vote though. The Democrats also had a trifecta in 1993 when an earlier version of that bill was introduced, yet it didn't go anywhere either. The 1989 version though would've had issues.

Still, what I'm saying here is that the Democrats have had opportunities to enact legislation to codify abortion rights long before now.

Manchin is not up for vote in your particular state, and neither are most of those senators and congressional representatives. It's only on your plate to determine who to vote for on your own ballot. If there is a democrat running in your state, that democrat should not be judged based on the actions of some other democrat. If it's Biden, I have to say, I'd vote for Biden again, despite his age and some of his worst moments, if he's running against any of the current frontrunners (like DeSantis or Trump). That's not because I choose the lesser of two evils, it's because my vote says something and I'd want it to say that.

That still doesn't address the Democrat's lack of unified message and infighting though. They don't need to have Manchin or Sinema on the ballots, what they need to do is get people on board in states where there is someone on the ballot to vote under a unified message. There's a big split between progressive and rank-and-file Democrats though and unless there's a progressive candidate on the ballot, the progressive will likely look elsewhere or simply not vote. From what I've seen, the Democrats aren't doing anything to mend this and get both sides of their party on board so they can beat out Republicans in states where there are elections.

As for my state, voting in Utah doesn't matter nor will matter for the foreseeable future outside of the primaries. Whoever wins the Republican primary will win the general election and only registered Republicans can vote in those primaries. I don't know about Michigan though, while I pay attention somewhat, I'm not informed enough to make a decision.

I don't get this at all. What democrat are you talking about, Biden? Biden is not sitting on his hands, but his hands are somewhat tied. Manchin? You don't get to vote for Manchin.

The party as a whole. Introduce stuff, even if it fails, get it on record of who supports and doesn't support it. Debate it on the floor of Congress get politicians' positions on the record and then make those statements known. But nope, the Democrats are Tweeting about how "rights are under attack" while not really doing much of anything. I get that certain stuff isn't going to pass, but to not even put it to a vote? That seems ridiculous.

Biden is also the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, he needs to be pushing a message of unity and getting the party to fall in line around a common goal. He really needs to get Americans on board with him too. His approval rating is dismal and I can't imagine he's winning over any independents in any real meaningful numbers. I know he's not responsible for things like gas prices, but stuff like this:

Oil from U.S. reserves sent overseas as gasoline prices stay high

More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.

www.reuters.com

Is a bad look, even if the intentions around it make sense on some level. The average American doesn't understand that though, they see that they're paying $5 a gallon while our domestic oil reserves are being sent to other countries. Stuff like that won't help Biden's image, nor will it help bring people over to his cause.

Voting is primarily about speech, and I think it has become and should be, for basically everyone, single-issue at this point. A vote (speech) for American democracy or a vote for authoritarianism. It's such a stark contrast, and such a real tangible issue, that I almost don't see how any vote right now can be about anything else.

And I find that beyond depressing that my choices boil down to do I want authoritarians or a democracy that doesn't do anything. All it seems to be doing is pushing the inevitable of authoritarians taking over back slightly while they continue to rile up their base and disrupt things at the state and local levels, especially when it comes to gerrymandering.

Still, I don't feel like my vote matters in the slightest. I either vote for the party that's out to be authoritarians or vote for the party that's not, but doesn't actually make anything better. Both of those choices are terrible and more and more the only thing I'm starting to care about is whether or not the leader can keep the economy on track so that I have a job, make money, and can do the best I can with my family.

During the rise of Nazi Germany, would you like to say you refrained from voting because, while Hitler had problems, his opponents weren't as eloquent or unified as you'd like?

I'm honestly not sure. I can definitely see how the average German bought into the Nazi philosophy and turned a blind eye to the awful parts. Their economy was bad, people didn't have money, and it was just not a good place to live. They need someone to get them out of that and, apparently, Hitler was the man chosen to do that. I don't think most Germans thought, in the beginning, Hitler would commit so many atrocities. Having hindsight, I would absolutely not vote for him, but I can't really put myself in the shoes of a German citizen in the 30s to say for sure.

 

[TexRex]

I'm interested in knowing whether they literally had the votes.

Me too. I'm trying to remember if it even got out of committee.

 

[Danoff]

They had more of a majority then. The 111th Congress had upwards of 58 voting liberal Senators (two independents) and 255 in the House. From 2009-2011 they had a trifecta. I don't know all the political positions of all the Congressmen, but if they'd been truly serious about abortion rights as they are claiming, they could've made it happen back then. The Freedom of Choice Act wasn't even put to a vote though. The Democrats also had a trifecta in 1993 when an earlier version of that bill was introduced, yet it didn't go anywhere either. The 1989 version though would've had issues.

This does not tell me whether they had the votes.

Still, what I'm saying here is that the Democrats have had opportunities to enact legislation to codify abortion rights long before now.

See above.

That still doesn't address the Democrat's lack of unified message and infighting though. They don't need to have Manchin or Sinema on the ballots, what they need to do is get people on board in states where there is someone on the ballot to vote under a unified message. There's a big split between progressive and rank-and-file Democrats though and unless there's a progressive candidate on the ballot, the progressive will likely look elsewhere or simply not vote. From what I've seen, the Democrats aren't doing anything to mend this and get both sides of their party on board so they can beat out Republicans in states where there are elections.

As for my state, voting in Utah doesn't matter nor will matter for the foreseeable future outside of the primaries. Whoever wins the Republican primary will win the general election and only registered Republicans can vote in those primaries. I don't know about Michigan though, while I pay attention somewhat, I'm not informed enough to make a decision.

It's about speech, not about whether your vote is for the winner. You know this better than most.

The party as a whole. Introduce stuff, even if it fails, get it on record of who supports and doesn't support it.

They have. But I'm trying to get you to see that you don't vote for the party as a whole, of any party, but rather for individuals.

But nope, the Democrats are Tweeting about how "rights are under attack" while not really doing much of anything. I get that certain stuff isn't going to pass, but to not even put it to a vote? That seems ridiculous.

They did literally put Roe to a vote, and I think they're doing that (or similar) again at the moment. So you seem to be wrong in your critique.

Is a bad look, even if the intentions around it make sense on some level. The average American doesn't understand that though, they see that they're paying $5 a gallon while our domestic oil reserves are being sent to other countries. Stuff like that won't help Biden's image, nor will it help bring people over to his cause.

...you said it wasn't his responsibility but... you seem to be laying responsibility on him for it.

And I find that beyond depressing that my choices boil down to do I want authoritarians or a democracy that doesn't do anything. All it seems to be doing is pushing the inevitable of authoritarians taking over back slightly while they continue to rile up their base and disrupt things at the state and local levels, especially when it comes to gerrymandering.

Might as well not push back against the authoritarians then? I'm not following you.

Still, I don't feel like my vote matters in the slightest. I either vote for the party that's out to be authoritarians or vote for the party that's not, but doesn't actually make anything better.

Biden being in office right now is making things better. America was set to fall in 2021 otherwise. If you don't think that's making things better, I'm not sure why.

Both of those choices are terrible and more and more the only thing I'm starting to care about is whether or not the leader can keep the economy on track so that I have a job, make money, and can do the best I can with my family.

Stuff they're not in charge of.

I'm honestly not sure. I can definitely see how the average German bought into the Nazi philosophy and turned a blind eye to the awful parts. Their economy was bad, people didn't have money, and it was just not a good place to live. They need someone to get them out of that and, apparently, Hitler was the man chosen to do that. I don't think most Germans thought, in the beginning, Hitler would commit so many atrocities. Having hindsight, I would absolutely not vote for him, but I can't really put myself in the shoes of a German citizen in the 30s to say for sure.

You're effectively in those shoes today. Trump is not necessarily directly Hitler, but close enough for this question.

 

[Joey D]

This does not tell me whether they had the votes.

I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is since it wasn't brought to the floor and Obama came out and said it wasn't a high priority for him to press Congress.

It's about speech, not about whether your vote is for the winner. You know this better than most.

I understand that, I've almost never voted for a winner in any election and I'm OK with that. Maybe it's because I live in Utah that's made me completely jaded towards voting in general since I truly and honestly feel like my vote doesn't matter. Even when I do vote for something, the government turns around and changes it as they did with Proposition 2 which supported medical marijuana.

So you seem to be wrong in your critique.

I'll admit that I am likely wrong. I've grown so weary of the news that I likely don't pay attention nearly as much as I should and likely miss things.

...you said it wasn't his responsibility but... you seem to be laying responsibility on him for it.

I'm not putting the responsibility on him, but the average American definitely will, which was my point. It's really hard to get the average person to side with you when they're struggling to fill up their gas tanks and the oil that could help lower that is being sent overseas.

Might as well not push back against the authoritarians then? I'm not following you.

My point is, that pushing back against authoritarians by voting for someone who's likely going to be ineffective as a leader doesn't sit well with me. Ineffective leaders are still dangerous because they sit idly by and allow things to happen. I don't know what, exactly they should be doing, but it's clear the Republicans are continuing to gather steam and they're going to make a really big push at the national and state level. The Democrats don't seem poised to fight that with anything meaningful and it seems like their biggest selling point is "hey we're not Republicans". While that's definitely a good thing, there still needs to be a plan to deal with the issues that inevitably confront the US. I don't feel like they have a plan, or if they do, they don't really seem to be making it known.

Biden being in office right now is making things better. America was set to fall in 2021 otherwise. If you don't think that's making things better, I'm not sure why.

I don't think he's making things better, he's just not making them worse. I get that he was dealt a bad hand, but it feels like we're just stumbling from one crisis to the next with no real plan. I know Biden doesn't have direct control over many things, but he still wields power to do something, whether that's direct Congress to act or issue EOs. The economy is bad, inflation is at a 40-year high, COVID is still bad and will get worse with the new variant, monkeypox is being ignored, we still have a massive problem with illegal immigration, and domestic terrorism is more prevalent than I ever remember it. That's just the immediate stuff that comes to mind though.

You're effectively in those shoes today. Trump is not necessarily directly Hitler, but close enough for this question

I'm still not sure what to do though because while I feel authoritarianism is dangerous, I also feel electing ineffective leaders is dangerous too. There are some things that need immediate action or action at least soon, especially with the environment. It seems like no matter who's in charge, we're not really getting anywhere. So do I suck it up and deal with someone telling me what to do or do I suck it up and deal with large-scale crises as they come up? Both of those options are terrible and both don't really lead to having a good life.

Maybe I've just grown overly weary of everything.

 

[Danoff]

Both of those options are terrible and both don't really lead to having a good life.

There are two big, monstrous, road blocks to me having a good life in the US. One is the supreme court, and the other is authoritarian coup attempts. Gas prices do not rank. I appreciate how hard both of those two problems are to solve, especially when you don't have the votes in the senate.

 

[TexRex]

Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

 

[TB]

Dumbass doesn't even know where he is.

 

[UKMikey]

Never mind the entitled arrogance. They should've thrown this douchebag out just for wearing this handlebar moustache alone.

I hope he tries to boycott or sue PetCo.

How to make a career out of performative bigotry:

 

[TexRex]

 

[TexRex]

 

[McLaren]

I suppose the quote speaks for itself, but why a Hungarian PM is coming to Texas for CPAC still seems really weird.

 

[UKMikey]

I suppose the quote speaks for itself, but why a Hungarian PM is coming to Texas for CPAC still seems really weird.

The American right’s favorite strongman

Viktor Orbán dismantled Hungary’s democracy. Conservatives love him.

www.vox.com

 

[Dotini]

I suppose the quote speaks for itself, but why a Hungarian PM is coming to Texas for CPAC still seems really weird.

Wild guess: Some Republicans fear the US is on a direct and immediate path to nuclear war with Russia, and want to build bridges before it happens.

 

[Scaff]

Wild guess: Some Republicans fear the US is on a direct and immediate path to nuclear war with Russia, and want to build bridges before it happens.

Nope, they just like fascists.

 

[McLaren]

The American right’s favorite strongman

Viktor Orbán dismantled Hungary’s democracy. Conservatives love him.

www.vox.com

After winning Hungary’s 2010 election, the prime minister systematically dismantled the country’s democracy — undermining the basic fairness of elections, packing the courts with cronies, and taking control of more than 90 percent of the country’s media outlets.

Ah, that explains it quite well. They want notes from someone who achieved Trump’s desire.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Scaff]

Lovely bloke, lovely friends (oh wait)

Gab CEO Andrew Torba Broadcasts His Antisemitism Across Social Media Platforms | ADL

Gab CEO Andrew Torba claims he’s not an antisemite, but he tells a very different story via Gab’s Twitter feed and his personal Gab account.

www.adl.org

 

[Duke]

I AM SO BERKING DONE WITH RELIGION IN EVERY FORM.

How have we as a species not moved past this yet?

 

[Dotini]

I AM SO BERKING DONE WITH RELIGION IN EVERY FORM.

How have we as a species not moved past this yet?

Some of us are wise, virtuous, and independently successful. But as a species, perhaps we realize we need all the help we can get?