“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to pay for genocide in a foreign country against a foreign people for a foreign war that I had nothing to do with,”
It’s consistent from the viewpoint of not wanting to pay for what happens to those children abroad or at home, no matter the nature or morality of the action. Also: Look at the use of the word ‘foreign’ and think about, who she means with each use. Not with the ‘right’ intentions, she ends up at the correct policy.
I’m sorry you feel that way and I find myself having the same thoughts from time to time. I have to concede though, that the US is in fact the center of modern Neoliberalism and legal bribery.
Yet… You know who the lobbyists and donors don’t bother talking to? Bernie Sanders (and Ron Paul when he was still in office). Why? Because they know that they have core principles. Then the question becomes: How do we organize (meaning financial resources, outreach, strategy, know-how, recruitment, analysis, policy creation, media and many more) to get more of these people into office? And how can we put pressure on elected officials to enact “our” policies?
Agenda 2025, or the decades long judicial take-over did not come from Trump, but from such organizations like the Heritage Foundation. Which of course are funded by billionaires like Peter Thiel. These people and organizations have huge advantages over the rest, that is clear. But they need more than just money to be able to put public pressure on elected officials, to the point where 25% of voters are ride-or-die with that program and a further 25% are at least ok with it or were duped.
And yes, I am well aware it is an uphill fight. But please: Don’t let bad experiences doom you to inaction. Especially when this very moment, with the daily over-reach of the republican regime, there is real potential to galvanize an effective resistance.
Although I understand your point and would want to add that something like the Citizens United decision further diminishes power of the people without immense funds, I would like to point out, that participating in a democratic process doesn’t merely mean drawing a cross onto a piece of paper every 2 or 4 years. Much more is possible and in fact necessary.
As an example and can be witnessed right now, there is a severe lack of organizing of pro democratic forces. Which is also the result of a decades-long campaign by the capital-interest-serving political establishment to delegitimize or outright destroy such movements and organizations, from worker’s unions to independant media to the “Bernie Bros”.
Make no mistake though. They did this, because they know, that this type of collective political actions bare real power. It is upon each one of us wanting to defend democracy, basic rights and the rule of law to do our part to take back that power. Voting is but a small part of that, if you don’t have the people you need actually running, because they can’t afford to and you cannot seriously pressure those elected like the donor-class does.
Well there’s also a different mindset behind voting, if you can directly weigh in on important issues every few months. It’s not like in other countries where direct ballot measures are much more rare. But yes, I wished more people would try to participate in a responsible manner.
Fully agree with Nina Turner. If you don’t wanna do politics, you blindly leave major decisions over your life to others, who - as we can see world-wide - don’t necessarily have your interest at heart. Democracy, human rights, freedom or any other such ideas require a populace to vigilantly fight for them and not let those with opposed agendas undermine them.
But that analogy afterwards is simply dishonest on many levels.
Firstly, if you are talking about “harm reduction” or the “lesser of two evils”, ice cream is hardly a fair representation of the lesser evil.
Secondly this mixes in non-political people, who do not participate in the democratic process with moral objectors and the duped.
Thirdly: It diverts equal blame (literally in the response) to those groups and to the voters, who actually want the bigger evil or the powerful actors enacting it. This presupposes some moral value on active vs. passive behavior, which can be argued.
And lastly: Even if we find a fitting ice-cream substitute like throwing one of the passengers under the still moving bus, or - how another user suggested - braking before driving off the same cliff: The two who voted for that lesser evil also fight the four voters who are against evil harder, than they are fighting the ones who want the bigger evil. Why? Because they’d rather still drive off the cliff than not. And then they turn around and dishonestly shame the anti-driving-off the-cliff crowd for wanting to speed up instead. That is not a very good strategy.
Are they the same? No. But please keep your arguments honest, or you might get the exact opposite reaction from people, than you are hoping.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Do you care about democracy or not? Do you care about human rights or not? Do you care about Palestinians (Americans), African Americans, Latino Americans or all the others that are being blamed or not?
If you do, you don’t just play the blame game, sit back and ‘watch the world burn’ as you’ve put it. As long as you’re divided, you’re powerless.
Instead of blaming, you unite. Instead of antagonizing, you organize. Instead of resignation, you fight.
Democracy is being dismantled as we speak. Agency by agency, loyalist by loyalist, executive order by executive order. And instead of building community, helping each other and organizing with those around you, I see people, who supposedly care about democracy, about human rights, about those they accuse; and what are they doing? They are blaming people who are powerless and desparing. Thereby further dividing the populace and making the takeover easier for the fascists in power. Be careful: You are telling on yourselves and your values. And we can see you.
Yeah I made a similar discovery after installing a Shelly Switch with Power Metering. The monitors and their brightness make a huge difference as well when in or near idle (for photography, so not a surprise). I’ve also implemented an “anti-standby” function, so the switch opens whenever the current falls under a specific threshold.
For the WoL, since I have a switch, I configured my BIOS so it would turn on after power loss. Now I can start to boot up from afar :)
There are many parallels . The most alarming in my eyes is what is reminding me of what happened before and after the passage of the Enabling Act of 1933. What it effectually did was to concentrate power into the hands of the executive, circumventing the legislature to enact laws even if they are explicitly unconstitutional. The far right’s Unitary Executive Theory has basically the same stated goal. And the judiciary has already basically embodied this theory with the SC decision around presidential immunity. I fear it is only a matter of time, until the Executive Orders override laws and can’t be challenged until it’s too late. Which is why an actually resisting opposition and organizing on the ground is so important.
To your point: Before the vote the Nazis intimidated anyone opposing the law and arrested basically the whole of the Communist Party and some of the Social Democartic Party (SPD) while striking deals with the center and religious right, who wanted some assurances for their own if they vote for it. This is the Gleichschaltung you’re talking about. And the Trump administration has been known for nothing but intimidation (the complete media landscape has heeled except for a few small actually independent outlets) and so-called deals, so absolutely.
Also the ‘flooding of the zone’ as Steve Bannon announced it, as well as the use of catastrophies (fires, plane crashes) to assign further blame to the opponents and legitimize the own actions are straight out of Autocracy 101.
AOC is not calling for incrementalism.
That’s what I’m saying. Because neither did the user you replied to. They didn’t call for politicians to take small steps over time, but for everyone to take action so it adds up. Big difference.
The difference being that the incrementalism was outsourced to elected officials. What I understand that sentence to mean to say is that it needs every one of you who is able to do anything of any magnitude. It adds up. And like kattfisk says, you get active and organized. You have more power than you think and democracy is more than just drawing a few crosses in a box every few years.
I mean, who is going to do it if not you? What have the heroes from the Democratic party been up to since the peaceful transition of power? Some of the Dem senators voted for many of Trumps catastrophic picks. In a time where the White House is flooding the zone (as Steve Bannon put it some time ago), Shumer is giving speeches on the senate floor, that no one is listening to and Dem leadership is scheduling emergency meetings for after the reason for the meeting goes into effect. Finally AOC shows some kind of leadership and calls upon all of you to mobilize and resist fascism and you react with “it’s a stalling tactic”? Please realize that you want the same thing. But if you want a mass movement, you will need to be organized on a smaller scale first or else it will fizzle out quickly.
The interesting thing is that they are only one in a long line of businesses/industries openly admitting to employing undocumented immigrants, i.e. illegal hiring practices. It is clear, why these businesses are doing this: They can pay less (and the on-cost) and if at any point there is a dispute, they can threaten with the authorities, even if it is illegal in places to do so. If we can believe the numbers, they make up more than 4% of the workforce. Something that has been so seldomly prosecuted, it has become so prevalent, that they’re talking about it in the open.
So Trump would have made annexation through military force acceptable. Instead we have Putin now changing Russia’s nuclear doctrine to: Attacking in Russia, even with conventional weapons, merits a nuclear response. A member of a union will be considered as the union as a whole. And generally lowered the level of threat (to ‘sovereignty’ instead of the former ‘existence’). https://www.newsweek.com/russia-putin-nuclear-doctrine-1988843
I don’t see this ending well. The Ukrainians, who are getting the missiles do not only have their own interest of not conceding any territory, but also the interest in getting others, primarily the U.S. involved in a direct confrontation.
Now that is just plain stupid. One can make a moral argument for not wanting to vote for genocide, since the situation is similar, but not the same(!), as the famous Trolley Problem. But actively voting for the other pro-genocide option because you believed him to be a peace candidate? … This is something that needs honest analysis and reflection. Both by these voters as well as by the Democratic Party. How the hell could Trump with his abysmal record be perceived as the peace candidate by so many? I do expect though, that all the involved parties will learn the wrong lessons from this.
With all the blame, shaming and hate towards Muslim, Arab, African and Latino Americans we should also not forget: The only ethnic demographic from which Trump got a majority is: White voters.
Never forget that in 2016 13% of Trump voters voted for Obama in 2008/12. Maybe the Democratic Party can share some blame, instead of just shaming the voters.
Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.
So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)
I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.
My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.
I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.
Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.
I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.
In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.
What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.
That particular Venezuelan woman was one of the leaders of the coup attempt against Chavez in the early 2000s and has been an opposition leader ever since. What makes this complicated is that she welcomed sanctions and coup attempts by the US, including during Trump’s first term and she even pleaded to Netanyahu to liberate Venezuela with military force (wasn’t able to find a better source since search results are very award focused right now).
She has close ties to Israel’s Likud party, and wants to open the Venezuelan embassy in Jerusalem after Chavez ended diplomatic relations after their assault on Gaza in 2009 and likened Venezuela’s struggle to the one of Israel.
From the will of Alfred Nobel outlining who is to receive the prize:
I’m wondering how the committee is squaring this requirement with her calling for “the use of power” by external forces.