At best, “support our troops” was a version of that dumbass magical thinking that, in earlier times, held that the U.S. lost in Vietnam because Americans didn’t clap for Tinkerbell, err, I mean, support the war. Mostly, it was a thought-terminating cliché.
Yeah, as you rightly point out, it was never about the soldiers themselves.
It’s not accelerationism at all! It’s fatalism.
Accelerationism is, “It has to get worse before it can get better.”
My point here is, “The system that only allows for getting worse will never get better.”
A big issue with this approach: The United States is not a law of nature; it doesn’t have to exist. The system may only allow two options, but it does not guarantee that either one of those options will keep the system viable. Reduced harm is still harm, and at some point we needed to stop doing it.
Dammit, I came up with a Halloween costume too late. The plan would’ve been to dress up as a ‘like’ button, and get drunk.
Parents? My friend volunteered as a poll worker on the University campus here. At his location, 25% of the students voted for the orange fascist.
It’s the perennial coordination problem. Consider these truths: 1. Anybody who stands up alone will get viciously hammered down. 2. If a large number of people stand up together, they can make a difference. 3. People have to trust others to stand up with them, otherwise see #1.
How do we organize a large crowd of people that trust each other without the people in power catching wind of it and viciously hammering down the organizers? It sure would help to have some support from people already in positions of power…
Now, now, remember correlation is not causation. Maybe it’s not the unintuitive design; maybe a disproportionate number of idiots buy Teslas?
Right, and this isn’t rhetorical combat. You are correct, and I was continuing the train of thought.
“The court’s three conservative justices have accused the liberals of playing politics with abortion.”
It is to laugh!
Yep, interesting how they’re proud of America, they just hate all of the people and things in it.
Is that why quite a few progressive ballot initiatives and referendums also passed?
A friend who worked in D.C. for a while clued me in to the Rosetta Stone of understanding the right-wing mentality: It all flows from a deep, abiding self-hatred. They need constant reassurance that they are good people, because they don’t really believe it.
Furthermore, they literally need an untermenschen (the poor, the homeless, the sick) to be better than, so their own success proves that they are good.
It’s obvious when you look at it this way: America must axiomatically be all good, because they are Americans; with your criticism, are you saying they’re not good?
I don’t think that MAGA is an existential threat to democracy, or to Americans’ lives. If it were, Pres. Biden would do something about it, right? Like, maybe, lock them up. Or at least say so. He certainly wouldn’t be planning to just hand over the reins and walk away.
(P.S. If you can’t tell if the above is serious, then why couldn’t millions of voters actually think this way?)
He’s 78 and displaying moderate dementia symptoms. I wouldn’t worry about a third term.
Heck, people are still producing new games for the Commodore 64.
And Emmett Till could still be very much alive, had he not been lynched.
Still not great from a messaging perspective. Better ways to reach people who aren’t politics nerds or policy wonks:
Medical care will be affordable, so you can go see your doctor any time you or your family need to. If your kid gets sick, you can be there for them and help them get better without worrying about how to pay for care. You’ll get paid better, no more of the “boss gets a dollar, I get a dime” crap. No more stress about setting aside a college fund for your kids. They’ll be able to go to school, guaranteed. Strong American morals mean we’re not going to send our tax money to fund war and atrocities on the other side of the planet. If you lose your job, the government will have your back with enough money to survive on until you get back on your feet, no questions asked.
Goddamn, why can’t Democrats say this stuff, instead of word salad like, “Launch a National Health Equity Initiative to address health challenges that disproportionately impact Black men.” WTF does any of that even mean?
How’s that tactic of browbeating and blaming voters working out for ya?
There’s a germ of a good idea in there, but they’ve got it backwards: Big cities like Chicago need to “secede” from their states, like the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire. “Secede” here being a colloquial metaphor; the real, legalistic action would be declaring Dillon’s Rule void, and taking state-like sovereignty for themselves.
It makes sense on many levels: Cities are where lots of people live close together, and their infrastructure, services, public health, and governance needs therefore are very different than rural areas. They are the economic powerhouses of the world, and we need to let the city leaders nurture that power by responding to their local needs. The political polarization divides largely on urban/rural boundaries, and our antiquated political system dilutes city-dwellers’ votes and influence.
Lastly, our political system is broken, and can’t be fixed entirely within the system. But tearing down the system will definitely lead to chaos. (See: actual secession in 1861.) As I see it, this would be a radical move by the cities, but it would solve a lot of issues in the political system without tearing it down. It’s unlikely they’d get representation in Congress the way that free imperial cities had representation at the imperial diet, but even just getting out from under the thumb of state legislatures would be a huge step.
Sometimes you do it the hard way to send a message.