Reposted by tim "dicey" fitzzz
Keeping Trump out of the White House isn’t the only thing that needs doing and it isn’t enough to solve all problems facing the country & world but if it isn’t done then all those problems get exponentially worse in ways I don’t even know how to express and it scares me when people pretend otherwise
78 replies
1180 reposts
4563 likes
she's never been my candidate. but neither was biden. and on at least a few things i prefer her stance. i don't know how much i trust any of them to remain consistent after she's elected, so that doesn't count for much. but she isn't part of the fascist coup and stands the best chance of slowing it.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
i know it sucks but i don't see how it's anyone but kamala. she's been the known understudy. people voted in the general election in 2020 w/ this possibility on their minds. and if it's not her, the worms in the can that's going to open up will run through any remaining chance of beating trump.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Just thinking about politics right now makes me sick to my stomach ngl. I'll get over it I'm sure, this has happened a couple of times before when doom levels have reached critical
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Will the many assert ourselves as the root of all power? Or will the few hypnotize us into believing that they alone can set the terms by which we live? Right now, the bad guys have got the juice. But there's nothing stopping us from turning it around but the supreme court justices in our hearts.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
If this last decade has taught us anything it really should be sinking in by now that all of the rules, every norm, every law, is malleable, negotiable, even binnable. They're being morphed, cheated, trashed every single day by monsters. So who do WE believe has the power to decide? Us or them?
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
This is apocalyptic, yes -- if we accept the premise that we should all enact it and allow it and live as if it were real. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of stupid ideas somebody wrote on a piece of paper. We need to find our agency and recognize that this government is extrinsic to us in every way.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I don't know how to get folks to realize that *we are all, each of us, allowing this to happen*. We can't individually refuse or do anything to stop it, no matter how much we post or how many people we influence. But together, saying NO is as easy as saying no. "Together" is the only real hard part.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
From the Times’ analysis of the Court’s ultimate betrayal of liberalism yesterday, this wild graph.
There is something actually wrong with us if we really believe that six fascists in robes can transubstantiate a monarch where none previously existed. There is no such authority. BUT SUDDENLY, lmao
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Sounds to me like you don't know me
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
D, they did make an aristocracy, *what universe are you living in where the aristocracy’s role was ever even interrupted at any point including now??* Bzzt, we are done with this time-wasting conversation. Go drop names at somebody else.
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
lol you’ve got to be joking. A, that’s not a citation — give me the thing they said you’re expecting me to acknowledge. B, given the lack of chapter and verse, you’re again appealing to authority without even explaining your reasoning. C, that on its face doesn’t remotely make sense at all.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The only reason there is popular confusion about this is that we have been taught a presentist view of history that puts us in the shoes of people who decidedly were not us at all — shoes that the Founders would never have built any of this if they’d known it would allow us to wear.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
These men were turning a colony oriented around exploiting resources and men into a sovereign nation oriented around exploiting resources and men. They never meant for that to change, they just didn’t want to keep fighting amongst themselves over control of it. They weren’t secretive about any of it
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The idea that the only reason they didn’t expand “the franchise” to include working class men and women, folks held in bondage, and anyone else, is because they lacked awareness, is liberal bunk. They explicitly denied the franchise to these groups because they had actively anti-egalitarian aims.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
If you come back again saying “pssh that argument was roundly defeated by blah blah blah in 1932” or some such fallacious horseshit I’m blocking you and moving on. Fair warning.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Those legislatures were also them! What are you even talking about? None of the incredibly obvious points you’re making have literally anything to do with what I’m saying. “The ruling class” is not central(ized) power. They built an alternative to monarchy that elevated aristocrats to its equal.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
You keep saying that, but you refuse to specify what part of what I’m saying is so ridiculous, while simultaneously acknowledging that what I am saying is literally true. What is your goal here besides being a jerk?
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Right, as I said, “the people” they meant to rule were just themselves! They drew the line at anything that would enfranchise the broader society in such a way as to threaten their power. And yes they very much meant it.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
To me this feels like a very weird way to have a conversation: contradicting something condescendingly, refusing to explain your disagreement, and then basically just restating the original argument.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
If you say so
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
We needed to remove the many portions of our system of government that were designed intentionally to privilege wealth, whiteness, and might, to have a chance of holding onto or expanding that late, great pluralistic democracy. We didn’t, and now it seems to be too late.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The idea that Hofstadter “definitively demolished” the idea that the founders weren’t interested in popular rule beyond their own narrow socio-economic club is quite a claim that you’ll have to provide a lot more evidence for for me to do anything with. They didn’t even intend the Bill of Rights.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
It feels like you didn’t parse that admittedly vague post the way I wrote it. We aren’t currently organizing to overthrow the federal government, so it’s safe to say we are not in that future.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
What the right believes doesn’t change what’s true. The idea that the Founders had meant all along to steer the US towards the pluralistic democracy that finally bloomed late in the 20th century was always a fantasy. Ignoring that fact, building the future on quicksand, is part of how we got here.
2 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Oh, thanks, but I disagree, and I’m privy to plenty of scholarship. The Founders, members of the ruling class, absolutely never considered “democracy” as a bulwark against themselves. They considered landowning white men to be the extent of those eligible for any such role in the political system.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
This is in fact the actual problem. But it is true that the default road to whatever would be better is unknown, almost certainly rife with horrors, and may not even wind up there. I'd hate to think we'll achieve the misery required for that to become our future.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
Absolutely. Something that would be the only normal way to fix this jurisprudentially
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
He won't need a pardon. He'll be immune.
1 replies
0 reposts
3 likes
Folks: everything is fuckin torqued right now. Everything is scary. No path is safe. I've come around since the debate to Biden staying in being the best hope to defeat Trump. But not only is demanding people ignore their lyin eyes a terrible strategy for winning, it's broadly corrosive. Please stop
0 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
The skeet I'm talking about is the QT of the QT, but the QT response is part of it too. The idea that good media would downplay concerns about Biden's competence to comport with a particular view of what's strategic for Democrats is dangerously disconnected from reality. As scary as anything else.
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
I'm genuinely baffled by this response from soooo many people. Doubts about Biden's competence are not an invention of the media -- whatever your view of those doubts, they exist. The headline complained about below is stating a fact that liberals need to be at least strategizing around to win!
1 replies
0 reposts
0 likes
It's also irrelevant because we're not talking here about counter-majoritarianism, but the direct rule of a minority over a majority. No "minority rights" being protected here, especially since the "majority" is a coalition of minorities. The protection entire accrues to: the ruling class. Shocking.
0 replies
0 reposts
11 likes
Sure, sounds great -- and extremely familiar, because this is the explanation that every American primary school system offers. The only problem is that it's myth. The founders were primarily concerned with limiting democracy in order to preserve the ruling class.
2 replies
0 reposts
10 likes
Reposted by tim "dicey" fitzzz
The thing I can't stop thinking about is this: I'm 48, and in my adult lifetime there has been one Republican who won the popular vote. But I will probably spend the rest of my life under the authority of a Supreme Court dominated by hard right conservatives. How is that democracy?
67 replies
939 reposts
3632 likes
and further and further beyond. either joe biden engraves late-20th-century american democracy in stone and obliterates the forces who want to go back to white supremacist rule or democracy is going to be done for. it is inevitable just under the status quo, now, w/o any further sabotage required.
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes