While everyone is right about the reasoning, no one brought up the relevant historical example: Eugene Debs in the 1920 Election… which is unfortunate because it’s a good one.
Euegen Debs was a socialist candidate who ran in the 1920 elections after being jailed by Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1918 for opposing the US joining WW1 and the accompanying draft.
The words “right” and “left” politically mean the same thing they did 200 years ago. Left means you view human rights as paramount over property rights, and “Right” means you view property rights as more important than human rights. This means the dividing line is pretty clear. Capitalism, as a system, depends on property rights being enforced at the expense of people (see, being allowed to own empty residential property while people are homeless), and is therefore the dividing line. Left of center is anti-private property and anti-capital, and right of center is pro-private property rights and pro capitalism.
There are actions that can be taken that are far more effective than shit like that. I’d maybe go see what Andreas Malm has to say on the topic, for instance.
As much as I don’t like this bill the answer to your question about the house is “because the house has been an absolute cluster fuck (more than usual) and it would exactly be surprising if they modeled incompetence for us again”.
I also suspect that the goal is to sweep the wedge issue and win moderate republican and non-affiliated moderates, not to increase democratic voter turn out. They’re basically giving the Republicans the “let’s shoot immigrants” bill they’ve always dreamed of to take that card out of play for them.
Fascists fundamentally support political violence as a method for “solving division”. Anyone who is not a fascist and supports such violence at this moment needs to understand that political violence is going to backfire and play into the fascist’s hands unless you can first build alternative systems of power and support outside of the government.
If you start violence without that network of support in place, you will disrupt people’s lives, and the only support structure that can help will be the current Government. The military will be the ones providing food, medicine, and shelter. If you don’t have a strategy to get regular people affected by the disruption food, water, healthcare and shelter, you’re going to make the government the hero.
If you’re not a fascist, and believe political violence is necessary, your first step isn’t violence, your first step is to take a page from The Black Panthers and starting a community breakfast program.
Mike Johnson all but said he has the Democratic votes to avoid the fate of his predesessor. This might be the “Sedition Caucus”'s death knell if he’s right. This is basically all their leverage.
They got part of one demand (4 days of sick leave for some workers, iirc) out of 5 or 6 demands ( more pay, 15 days sick leave leave than they got, different scheduling that would allow for more time to inspect trains to prevent shit like East Palestine, Ohio, amongst other things). Absolutely not everything. He took away their right to strike and gave them the tiniest possible consession so that people would go and defend him by saying “ok. He crushed the strike, but he actually turned around and helped them get what they wanted after”. Purely doing whatever is politically convient, just like him standing on the picket line with the auto workers only a few months later. Disgusting. Thank for reminding me why he sucks.
I recently heard somewhere that the joke in India is that in western tech company’s “AI” stands for “Absent Indians”.
it’d be a great place to grow some weed.
That’s an interesting claim considering that US oil production has rapidly increased in the last 10ish years. Like, I hope he’s not full of shit, but the numbers I can find suggest were actually producing the most oil we’ve ever produced right now.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m
Like it’s nice that he’s saying that and all, but I hope my skepticism can be forgiven until the US government, like, actually does something to reduce oil production. I hope he’s right, but right now congress can’t even pass a fucking budget, much less create sweeping, radical anti-oil-production legislature.
No the part where he’s leaving.
“No matter the odds, or personal cost, we did the right thing… in this spirit that I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year”
Never thought we’d agree. Hope more people decide to make the right choice.
My money's on Sean winning.
But he… wasn't. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn't "regular people put Hitler in power", it's "broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists".
Hey…If she wants to wear a bikini, who am I to tell her no? Go for it. Unless of course, she doesn't actually want to and is just being intentionally obtuse like a old judgmental cunt.
Ok, I get the sentiment but let’s bear in mind that whatever rules apply to Trump will be applied to others. It should be very hard to bar someone from running. Trump doesn’t have the support to win the general. It’s not happening. He lost the Republican party multiple elections now, and they know it (well, enough of them know it). Let’s not forget that Eugene Debs ran for office in 1920 from prison. He was put there under the Sedition Act for speaking out against WW1 and the draft, if I recall correctly. This type of thing is a sword that cuts both ways.
I notice a fair number of people suggesting that it might give incentive to corrupt the public media outlet, or that it may be biased toward the government funding it… and yeah… that’s probably true to one degree or another. But, that said, I think we all should take a moment and think honestly about bias in media. All media is biased, especially the ones that claim they’re unbiased. Just because it’s privately funded doesn’t make it any less succeptible to corruption or bias. Indeed one of the biggest complains about our news is that the majority of media companies are owned and operated by, what is it, six(?) companies, and we know they all mislead people regularly on issues that affect them. Instead of focusing on removing bias from media, we should all be more diligent about being skeptical of the author’s presentation of the media we consume regardless of funding source, and particularly when it is selling is info that we agree with and that angers us.
To solve the climate crisis the ~1 billion people in global north will absolutely need to significantly bail out the global South. There is no clear development path that doesn’t go through heavy fossil fuel usage, and it should go without saying we probably can’t even improve the living standard of another billion people, let alone seven billion without basically just giving them money and technology to skip the fossil fuel step. Countries in the global north have actually agreed to this framework, it’s just that noone has actually made good on the promise yet. So… not only is it not nonsense… it’s an active dispute between developed countries and developing countries.