Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

The Anthropocene won't survive another 50 years of Global Capitalism; waiting for Center-Right Democrats to save anyone from Trumps policies is a losing strategy.

And there's the long term concern. Will complex mammalian life survive? I don't hold out much hope for any form of government pulling out of this ecological nosedive but I suppose I'm mainly a believer in a government with A: compassion and B: devotion to empirical methods. Make mine Least Bad or Least Harm. Fat chance of that with so many humans, so many conflicting regional interests. Yankee gonna Yank, Chinese gonna China, Rusky gonna Russian. And smaller states dragged along for the ride. Some times screaming in panic louder than other times.

ETA: obvious onset dementia and NPD and a nuclear button seems a More Bad approach.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Interesting thrad with interesting replies to the thrad.

Start:

People’s response to McCain’s passing and his memorial today shows me that we are very bad at nuance.

— Aditi Juneja (@AditiJuneja3) September 2, 2018

The kick off for interesting replies:

Which maybe means that I shouldn’t be on Twitter or need to really cull who I follow. Who are the more nuanced twitter accounts you follow that challenge your thinking?

— Aditi Juneja (@AditiJuneja3) September 2, 2018

[Kael]

Chunks, I really don't disagree with most of what you're saying. I'm on the same page on the broad strokes, like the analysis of why Clinton's centrist strategy backfired, and just how bad things are now. I'm not saying you have to like or even put up with the shortcomings of the Democratic Party. I'm talking about the brute pragmatism of the situation: we don't have a genuinely leftist party in the US with any real clout. It's just not on the table. It could be, these things are mutable, and efforts like getting more progressive candidates through primaries is a good way to push things in that direction, and in the long run either get the Party leadership to come around or get them replaced. What I'm saying is that come election day when the only options – and yes, they are the only options; that's the math of a first-past-the-post system, if you think that sucks as much as I do then that needs to be a focus of your demands for reform – are Center-Right with standard-issue corruption and Ultra-Right with a double helping of corruption and bonus insanity, the necessary choice is pretty clear.

The only reason I can see to let the Ultra-Right sweep the table, which is what you're doing when you don't vote or vote third party – again, that's just the math of it – is if you're actively trying to make things worse in hope of a total collapse and probably violent revolution. Now, if that's you're goal, just be honest about it. We can have a whole separate discussion about why I think that's a terrible idea. But if it's not, don't pretend you're standing on principle when you're actually just ignoring the reality of the situation. The electoral numbers over the last decades, culminating in 2016, make it clear to me that the worst elements of the Right got in power because of the abstentions of the liberals, progressives, and leftists far more than because of a sudden surge in the popularity of fascist ideas.

I disagree with the "both parties are the same" narrative on nearly every level - even the places where they are comparable such as big business interests and drone bombings I think there is a non-trivial distinction to be made, usually with Republicans being worse. However, even if we grant some level of parity in these areas for sake of argument, there are still too many areas where the unarguably worse outcomes of a Republican win, such as efforts to roll back LGBT rights and women's rights, should have been enough to get your vote, however begrudging, and however rightfully outraged that there wasn't a better choice. The state of the Supreme Court and the known intention of Republicans to appoint more theocratic “originalist” bullshitters to lifetime seats should have been enough to get you out there working damage control, however frustrated you were that damage control was the best available option. These things should still be enough to get your vote in November, although I hope that you and everyone else keeps pushing back on the areas where the least-worst party keeps falling way too short.

I know you don't think anyone can avoid the moral responsibilities of the abuses of Global Capitalism simply because they don't personally run any sweat shops. So why do you think you've dodged the moral responsibilities of the outcomes of our elections because of your refusal to effectively participate?

[But]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Noam Chomsky on Fascism, Showmanship and Democrats’ Hypocrisy in the Trump Era | Global Policy Journal

With no support from big business or the media, Sanders might well have won the Democratic nomination had it not been for the machinations of Obama-Clinton party managers.

Chomsky engaged in "stupid shit" conspiracy theories!

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Kael

we don't have a genuinely leftist party in the US with any real clout. It's just not on the table. It could be, these things are mutable, and efforts like getting more progressive candidates through primaries is a good way to push things in that direction, and in the long run either get the Party leadership to come around or get them replaced.

Yes, exactly.

There is a sort of bipolar type thing I've seen with some of these primary options. On the one hand, people like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Kara Eastman* can win primaries, and they claim that the left is coming for all establishment Democrats and they'd better fall in line. But if someone like Cuomo or Menendez wins a primary, the claim is that the Democratic Party is too corrupt to be redeemed. Maybe the people making these claims don't overlap that much, it might be the different factions are just louder depending on the results. I think it's clear that people running more progressive campaigns can win primaries and that's how I vote in primaries**, but the fact that you don't win every one of them is a function of not all other Democratic voters being on the same page AND other Democratic candidates responding by moving to the left. The former means you need to work on persuasion more. The latter is a good thing.

What won't work is taking your ball and going home. Maybe the Democratic Party doesn't do enough. But spending your time and energy on 3rd-party candidacies that are guaranteed to do nothing of value, and might even get more Republicans elected, is a far worse strategy than trying to move the Democratic Party left. Seeing the Tea Party/white nationalists completely take over the GOP should make it clear that entryism is a better strategy than 3rd-party spoilerism.

*she doesn't get talked up as much, but she defeated Brad Ashford in the primary, who held the seat 2015-2017

**unfortunately I haven't had many interesting primaries to vote in. I did help oust the longtime somewhat socially conservative not very good DC councilman. Of course, I'd also consider other aspects of the candidates like personality (if you're progressive but kooky, say) or scandals, etc.

What I'm saying is that come election day when the only options – and yes, they are the only options; that's the math of a first-past-the-post system, if you think that sucks as much as I do then that needs to be a focus of your demands for reform

I think electoral system reform is a good thing for people who want better options to push for but I'd have to add some caveats (mostly disappointing ones).

For one, starting locally is probably better. However, an issue in the US is the sheer amount of elections. A lot of other countries don't have as many elected offices. The problem with this is that most voters can't really pay attention to that many races, because they don't have time to learn about all the candidates or understand the issues, particularly for offices like Commissioner of Agriculture or weird-ass shit like mosquito control districts (which actually have elections in some places for some reason). This means that attention is an aspect to consider - the system needs to work when voters will be using simple heuristics. This is one of the reasons that parties are valuable.

Another is that the Constitution mandates some aspects of our elections, which means that reforming some parts is an extremely tall order. In particular, the presidency has the Electoral College and mandates that the winner get a majority of electors, and if not, the House of Representatives will vote on a state delegation basis. That means it's extra vulnerable to gerrymandering in the House and also affected by similar issues as the Senate. Not only do Republicans get more seats in general, but gerrymandering means they hold majorities in more states than they should, but North Dakota gets equal weight to California. This means that no 3rd-party candidate is winning out of the House, and there's a very high chance that a Republican will win in any given year even if the Democrats control the House. As a result is basically impossible to dislodge the two-party system for the presidency without amending the Constitution or as part of the country falling apart (like 1860). Recognizing this doesn't make me a "center-right status quo" person, it just means I'm not in denial and thinking that voting for Jill Stein (or other 3rd-party) will ever accomplish anything good.

And given that partisan polarization is strongly affected by the presidency, that means that 3rd-parties are going to have a hard time in many places regardless of reforms.

But we can push for things like approval voting, single transferable vote or other ranked choice systems at the city or state level.

I do think that expanding the franchise through making the right to vote a guarantee, making it easy to exercise, lowering the voting age and extending voting rights to non-citizens for some elections and eliminating gerrymandering is more important than trying to encourage third-parties though. Eliminating the factors that make the electorate/median district more right-wing than the general public will do more to move the country left. I don't think the two-party system is as important an explanation for the situation in the US as many people do (or I used to). I think other anti-democratic features are more important.

I disagree with the "both parties are the same" narrative on nearly every level - even the places where they are comparable such as big business interests and drone bombings I think there is a non-trivial distinction to be made, usually with Republicans being worse.

It's really quite hard to think of where Republicans are better.

As for drones, Trump has increased their use significantly and loosened the rules for their use, resulting in a large increase in civilian deaths.

For what the Palestinians think of Clinton, well, I don't think they all think the same way. There were also quite a few on the left (like Glenn Greenwald) pushing the notion that Trump would not be so hardline pro-Israel. Maybe it would be more informative to hear what Palestinians think now, after seeing Trump's uniformly pro-Israel/anti-Palestine changes, rather than in 2016.

However, even if we grant some level of parity in these areas for sake of argument, there are still too many areas where the unarguably worse outcomes of a Republican win, such as efforts to roll back LGBT rights and women's rights, should have been enough to get your vote, however begrudging, and however rightfully outraged that there wasn't a better choice.

I'd also note that chunks quotes Chomsky about Russian meddling. I don't really agree with Chomsky's view here, which is somewhat tu quoque and which I think makes an unjustified conflation between America and certain factions within America. The fact that the US has meddled in other countries elections and governments does not thus make it ok that it happens to America, for one. For another, America's elections have far higher stakes than Guatemala's because it has the world's more powerful military and has a central role in the world economy, and of course, because it is simply one of the largest countries in the world by population. Putting a right-winger in charge of Grenada is very bad, sure, but putting a deranged narcissist in charge of the world's largest military and nuclear arsenal seems somehow worse.

More importantly, however, the fact that right-wing Americans meddle in foreign elections to benefit right-wing extremists doesn't even make it a proper revenge for foreign right-wingers (like Putin) to meddle in America's elections to benefit right-wing extremists. If the USSR brings about a communist government in Cuba, and then Cuba were to now (somehow) bring Russia back to communism, this should be seen as a story of global communism, not Russia vs. Cuba. It would be nonsensical for a right-wing Cuban to conclude that it was only fair for Cuba to meddle in Russia and thus Russian's complaints about communism returning are silly. And I don't think they would - they would probably feel sympathy for the Russian right-wing.

Consider that people like John Bolton supported regime change in countries like Iraq and Iran, and then Russia meddles to affect which regime takes over America. "America has received its comeuppance!" you say. Well fucking John Bolton is now the National Security Advisor, presumably pushing for regime change in Iran rather than merely pulling out of the Iran deal. Some comeuppance he received, eh?

It would be another matter entirely if instead Russia had meddled to put a far left president in the White House. Then the response of "aha, see you don't like it when it happens to you! Well, turnabout is fair play in the great game!" would at least make sense on its own terms.

In response, I'd also note two other things that Chomsky has said. For one, he is a proponent of voting for the lesser evil. The other is that the called the GOP the most dangerous organization in human history, because it does not simply have an inadequate response to climate change, but actively embraces policies to make it worse, and thus is working towards making Earth uninhabitable for human life. As such, he said that anyone in a swing state in the US should vote for Clinton. Apparently he is a center-right status quo fool too

Errr, but to get to my point to Kael... climate change is also a pretty big deal, perhaps the biggest deal and even if the Democrats are inadequate to the challenge, it makes no sense to shrug your shoulders at the GOP instead wanting to encourage the use of coal and relax fuel standards, etc. Particularly if you're concerned about the rest of the world - many developing countries will be hardest hit by climate change. Losing four or eight years on this issue is not trivial. Even if you are disappointed with them on many of these other issues, climate change should be reason enough.

I know you don't think anyone can avoid the moral responsibilities of the abuses of Global Capitalism simply because they don't personally run any sweat shops. So why do you think you've dodged the moral responsibilities of the outcomes of our elections because of your refusal to effectively participate?

Lemieux at LawyersGunsMoney calls this consumerist/individualistic voting. Gonzo expressed this in its purest form in the aftermath of the election:

Originally Posted by erimir

Since we're on the subject of "betraying socialism", the individualistic attitude displayed here seems pretty opposed to the principles of socialism, doesn't it?

Every libertarian asshat out there knows how to say "You might think it's my job to pay taxes to support sick people or poor people, but I think it is obnoxious."

This is a consumerist model of voting and it's not a coincidence that it requires little to change it into a libertarian argument.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by But

Chomsky engaged in "stupid shit" conspiracy theories!

I see you think Chomsky's authority is great enough that this should be an issue for me. Chomsky said it, so it must be justified.

In which case, I will again point to these other things Chomsky has said:

he is a proponent of voting for the lesser evil. The other is that the called the GOP the most dangerous organization in human history, because it does not simply have an inadequate response to climate change, but actively embraces policies to make it worse, and thus is working towards making Earth uninhabitable for human life. As such, he said that anyone in a swing state in the US should vote for Clinton.

Chomsky engaged in "center-right status quo" foolery!

As for what Chomsky said about the nomination, I would say that sure, if Democratic politicians hadn't gotten behind Clinton, she might not have won the nomination. If you want to call that "machinations", sure. That's not the same thing as "rigging" the primary. Party leaders endorsing candidates in party primaries is not illegitimate or corrupt, in my view. She won the popular vote and the majority of pledged delegates, so superdelegates did not nominate someone against the will of Democratic voters. But it is also true that if they had nearly uniformly rejected her, the superdelegates could've delivered the nomination to Sanders despite his popular vote/pledged delegate loss. Ok, if ratifying the popular will of Democratic primary voters is "machinations" then also sure, they did that. But it is unclear what exactly he means, so I wouldn't say whether he's embracing conspiracy theories without more detail.

If what he means by "machinations" is the same as you do, then yes, he believes in a stupid conspiracy. Chomsky is not infallible and he doesn't have access to secret evidence that I don't. The evidence doesn't support your stupid shit conspiracies.

[But]

[erimir]

Do you have anything of actual worth to contribute?

[chunksmediocrites]

...Chomsky also argues that voting for Clinton is better than voting for Trump;

Noam Chomsky on Leftists Who Did Not Vote for...

His points are entirely valid. Like I said, vote strategically, but with open eyes; note that he also points out that pressure from the Left is required. What I refuse to accept is arguments that the Center-Right Party cannot be criticized and pressured, including with the threat and reality of with-holding votes. Politicians on the national stage especially must be led, rather than leading; too many of them are wind socks.

The emails I sent to the senators representing my state today:

I am writing to you today to ask you to stand up and block as many judicial nominations put forth by the Trump Administration, with every tactic available to you, and to repudiate the actions of Senator Schumer this last Tuesday, August 28, fast-tracking 15 Trump nominees to the judiciary. Why did Senator Schumer do this? What possible real justification could this ever have?

The actions of Senator Schumer undermine the stated goal of Democrats to make every effort to block the upcoming judicial nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and signals capitulation. A Democratic Party unwilling to fight for this with everything they’ve got signals to the electorate that they are either unwilling or unable to represent the interests of the base they claim to represent. A Democratic Party unable to censure Senator Manchin, Senator Donnelly, and Senator Heitkamp for voting to confirm Neil Gorsuch is additionally signalling to the people that they cannot, will not take a stand when it counts.

Too many articles by pundits and scholars claim the Democratic Party is powerless to block this nomination, and claim that the Democratic Party is unwilling to force questions regarding a quorum, and unwilling to force a “nuclear option” to filibuster the nomination.

Many people the Democratic Party assumed would vote for them in the 2016 election did not participate, in part because of decisions like just like Senator Schumer’s this last Tuesday, that signal a lack of resolve and an unwillingness to stand up, think creatively, hold their members accountable, and fight for their constituents.

A Democratic Party that won’t fight with everything stands for nothing, and will lose voter support, including my own.

I sent a modified version of this same email to Schumer.

[But]

Originally Posted by erimir

The fact that the US has meddled in other countries elections and governments does not thus make it ok that it happens to America, for one.

That's debatable. What is an objective fact is that when it happens to the bitch who supported the coup in Honduras and organized the clusterfuck in Libya, it's really, really funny.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

What I refuse to accept is arguments that the Center-Right Party cannot be criticized and pressured

Of course, in fact that is exactly what is necessary if you really want things to move away from the insane fringe of the right that has taken control.

including with the threat and reality of with-holding votes.

See, that's where you lose me. In an ideal world that would be how it works, but it ignores the realities of how our system works. Not voting for the major contender that most closely matches your views, no matter how far away from your views they actually are, is effectively supporting their opposition, which would necessarily be even further removed from where your ideal is. When you're this far to the right, movement back toward the center is still movement to the left, and when you're this far to the right, any movement to the left is better than more movement to the right - which is the inevitable and entirely predictable consequence of staying home or voting third party. If you want that to change, you have to start where we currently are. And most centrally in this discussion, you shouldn't act as though abstaining gives you the moral high ground.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

...Chomsky also argues that voting for Clinton is better than voting for Trump;
Noam Chomsky on Leftists Who Did Not Vote for Clinton - YouTube
His points are entirely valid. Like I said, vote strategically, but with open eyes; note that he also points out that pressure from the Left is required. What I refuse to accept is arguments that the Center-Right Party cannot be criticized and pressured, including with the threat and reality of with-holding votes.

If Noam Chomsky, of all people, is saying to vote for Clinton, after all the criticisms he's made of the Democrats, it would seem that he doesn't think the reality of withholding votes is a worthwhile strategy. You are free to disagree with Chomsky, of course, I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but it does seem you do disagree.

I have not argued that you cannot criticize the Democrats. I haven't defended everything they do either. I do not say that you should not pressure them. You should especially pressure them in primaries, and also with other forms like phone calls, letters and protests.

It is a straw man to say that I have suggested otherwise.

I do think you should, if you have the time and ability to understand how our stupid political system works, take the realities of our system into account when you do criticize them, however. I don't think Schumer is doing a great job and I think Harry Reid would be doing a better job. But I'm not expecting him to block everything the GOP wants to do because that simply isn't possible. There is on one neat trick that lets them do that. The Democrats seriously fucked up in 2009-2015, especially the earlier half of that period, in maintaining norms that the Republicans demonstrated they were determined to pervert into a minority veto. Quite a few of the Democrats most responsible are already gone (a lot of red state Democrats thought this moderation would save their seats, and it did not, others like Lieberman are just assholes), but others are not (for example, Pat Leahy*, the sucker who reinstated the blue slip rule that allowed the GOP to hold so many circuit court seats open). If the Democrats had been willing to nuke or neuter the filibuster earlier, or change other procedural rules, they could've done a lot more in that time period. But none of that means that they can now unilaterally stop Kavanaugh. The failure of 2009 Democrats to utilize their majority to its full extent does not somehow give them the ability to prevent the GOP from doing so now.

And you should not misrepresent Nixon and Eisenhower as being to the left of current Democrats. Or suggest they've spent the entirely of the past 20 years moving to the center. Particularly not when the current Democratic platform is the most progressive it's been in decades, at a minimum.

And you shouldn't claim that Democrats want to privatize Social Security when the most recent push to do so was unanimously opposed by Democrats and they spent none of their time controlling Congress trying to do so.

And that you should also know facts like that the Heritage plan gutted Medicare and Medicaid while Obamacare expanded Medicaid before you dismiss Democratic accomplishments. What is the value in that criticism? Is it meant to make conservatives seem less monstrous than they are? Is there some value to the left in arguing that the GOP wanted to expand Medicaid enrollment by millions when that wasn't true then and they spent the last year trying to gut it?

Responding to that by claiming I'm declaring Democrats immune from criticism seems to me to be deeply in bad faith.

*Unfortunately he's not up again until 2022, but Leahy is an example of someone progressives should be targeting in a primary. His wishy-washy spinelessness ought to mean he gets a serious challenger, but nobody bothered to challenge him in 2016...

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by Kael

In an ideal world that would be how it works, but it ignores the realities of how our system works. Not voting for the major contender that most closely matches your views, no matter how far away from your views they actually are, is effectively supporting their opposition, which would necessarily be even further removed from where your ideal is. When you're this far to the right, movement back toward the center is still movement to the left, and when you're this far to the right, any movement to the left is better than more movement to the right - which is the inevitable and entirely predictable consequence of staying home or voting third party.

Debatable, depending on which race, in which state, in which election. Otherwise, how do you actually move the politicians to the Left? If voting is your power, and you pledge that power no matter what, then you've given that power away. Many black voters, for example, are not okay with the Democratic Party simply assuming they will get their votes no matter what, especially when the concerns of the black community fall on deaf ears. Power has to be leveraged, or it's not power at all.

Originally Posted by Kael

If you want that to change, you have to start where we currently are. And most centrally in this discussion, you shouldn't act as though abstaining gives you the moral high ground.

You're reaching here. I'm saying don't give laurels and don't put blinkers on about how Center-Right politicians give one single fuck about you; you have to make them. And to do that you have to leverage your voting power.

There is a clear gap RIGHT NOW between what people believe is the political realities and what they call ideals, and shit on. There were numerous pundits talking about how Andrew Gillium in Florida had no chance, M4A and Abolish Ice was too radical, and that voting for Gillium in the primary was throwing away your vote. They were only too happy to frame their argument in "political realities". And they were absolutely mistaken- just as the Center-Right "reality" based strategy in the last election was entirely mistaken.

I'm not compromising away ideals before even getting near a ballot box.

[Ensign Steve]

One thing to keep in mind is that a protest vote (or abstention) is a very different thing in Oregon than it is in North Carolina, for example.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

Debatable, depending on which race, in which state, in which election. Otherwise, how do you actually move the politicians to the Left? If voting is your power, and you pledge that power no matter what, then you've given that power away.

There are things called primaries.

How do you think the Tea Party filled the GOP with kooks?

There is a clear gap RIGHT NOW between what people believe is the political realities and what they call ideals, and shit on. There were numerous pundits talking about how Andrew Gillium [sic] in Florida had no chance, M4A and Abolish Ice was too radical, and that voting for Gillium [sic] in the primary was throwing away your vote.

Ok, you seem to be aware of them. But I'm pretty sure Gillum didn't win because his folks were campaigning on "we won't vote for Gwen Graham if she's the nominee."

They were only too happy to frame their argument in "political realities". And they were absolutely mistaken- just as the Center-Right "reality" based strategy in the last election was entirely mistaken.

I definitely hope Gillum wins the general, and I think he has a good chance. The first poll shows him slightly ahead. Winning in Florida would be a big deal.

But, you know, there's still a general election to win before you declare this proves all your points.

And either way, there's also the matter of explaining other elections. There is a backlash against the GOP because Trump is in power, and it's not only benefiting candidates like Gillum. Joe Manchin is consistently polling ahead of his Republican opponents, in a state Trump won by 42 pts. Bob Casey is polling ahead by double digits in Pennsylvania, but is not running on as progressive of a platform. Florida is a state that Trump won by 1 pt. What is your theory of things that makes sense of that? Joe Manchin and Bob Casey seem to have a handle on their political realities, based on the polling so far... Shouldn't a theory work for more than one race?

I think we're also seeing with Stacey Abrams in Georgia that some ideas that Democrats needed to move right on race and gender issues in the wake of Trump, that we shouldn't nominate non-white candidates or women, aren't really being borne out. The polling is close, but the average is slightly in her favor. In Georgia.

(Interestingly enough, Gillum and Abrams both endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary...)

[Kael]

My whole point is that withholding your vote in the general election, for most offices in most States and pretty much everything at the federal level, doesn't work in our current system. It doesn't leverage power, and it doesn't force Democrats back to the left. Instead it cedes the field to a party unambiguously worse in every metric you can think of, who then claim a popular mandate no matter how close the race was and strengthen their hold on power to make it that much harder for anyone less insane to oust them next time. Criticize, push, and threaten Democrats all you want, that's a good thing. But when the general rolls around and it's the corporatist Democrat vs the literally fascist Republican, abstention in whatever form will be a losing strategy every time. When your shit's on fire, it doesn't matter how crappy, incompetent, or corrupt the fire department is, letting the arsonist who wants to throw gasoline on it have a go is not a better option, and it doesn't prove anything except your willingness to see more people get hurt before you compromise.

[chunksmediocrites]

https://apnews.com/593208cb65f24c479...e-young-voters

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

One thing to keep in mind is that a protest vote (or abstention) is a very different thing in Oregon than it is in North Carolina, for example.

Sure, but

1. you should still vote in your primaries and there may be local races that get less attention. Oregon isn't likely to go red for president (although it got pretty close in 2000 and 2004), but you still could have worthwhile primary elections. There are a lot of district attorney and sheriff elections that could have implications with ICE, for example...

2. I didn't see chunks using any qualifiers about swing states or which elections (presidential vs. lower office)

3. people don't always know what a safe state is. If you're in California or Vermont, sure. But there were people who thought Pennsylvania was safe in 2016 though, despite, you know, both campaigns visiting it heavily... People they know or public figures in other, safer states may have persuaded them to risk a protest vote even if those persuaders wouldn't have risked it in PA.

Oregon appears to have a competitive gubernatorial election this year, for example. I don't think abstaining there this year would be risk-free just because OR isn't voting for Trump...

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Random guy gets involved:

��SHORT THREAD ��
I used Twitter to vent for over a year. it was the only way to get out my fear, frustration, and anger. Then, almost 6 months ago, I decided to try to do something. Went to a Democratic primary debate for my congressional district, #NJ11 pic.twitter.com/3QhjVTvucF

— Tim "Actually you DO need my vote" Patrick (@dasdeadpool) September 3, 2018

[chunksmediocrites]

John McCain’s Funeral Was the Biggest Resistance Meeting Yet

This was to be no mere laying to rest of a Washington wise man, nor just another funeral of an elder statesman whose passing would be marked by flowery words about the end of an era. It was a meeting of the Resistance, under vaulted ceilings and stained-glass windows.

War criminals are the #Resistance? George Bush, responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people, is going to help America get rid of Trump? Are these the allies that are going to put out that fire in the burning building analogy?

Quick question: How many hundreds of thousands of people has Trump killed so far? Wait- Trump- a self-serving piece of shit- dared suggest actually pulling ALL of the US troops out of Afghanistan, until "wiser heads" prevailed. He suggested removing the 30,000 US troops that have been sitting on the Korean Peninsula for six decades, until political realists and the "Deep State"- that is also being touted as #The Resistance, and war hawks in the Democratic Party as well, prevailed.
Dem senators move to halt potential US troop withdrawal from S. Korea

Mind you, there's definitely still time. Trump may be able to outdo his predecessors in war crimes, and he's certainly killed on his watch. His road to fascism is scary as fuck.
George Bush is the resistance. George Bush.


The New Yorker, bastion of serious journalism and culture.
New Yorker Festival Drops Steve Bannon From Speaker Lineup Amid Backlash

[erimir]

George Bush resists Trump by throwing very subtle shade and giving Michelle Obama candy.

McCain resisted Trump by voting for billionaire tax cuts and voting to confirm almost all of his appointments, even blatantly unqualified/grifters like Rick Perry*, Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos, and then holding onto his seat long enough to protect Trump's ability to appoint more nutjobs in 2019-2020. And occasionally issuing statements about how SOMEONE (usually not specified, but you know who) is doing something bad.

*The sad thing is that Rick Perry, despite being put in charges of the nukes while having a degree in animal husbandry, might actually be one of Trump's better appointments, and he didn't even know what the Department of Energy did and wanted to eliminate it before he was chosen. That's how low the bar is.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Thrad of some pretty enraging shit:

CROWDSOURCE: Do you have a representative that voted to repeal the ACA that’s running again? Did they have a town hall to explain why did that and a better vision for health care?

Tell all if you’re willing to share and consider circulating.

— Andy Slavitt (@ASlavitt) August 31, 2018

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

In Violation of Texas Law, Most High Schools Aren't Giving Students the Chance to Register to Vote

[chunksmediocrites]

The Onion: Obama Urges Young Voters To Ignore How Many Lousy Candidates Democratic Party Runs

“We’re experiencing a crisis in our democracy that can only be stopped by showing up to vote for people who will fight for transformative change, but until we start offering that, please just go to your polling place and cast your vote for whichever mediocre Democrat is on the ballot,” said Obama, pressing young people to avoid thinking about the actual track records and ideological beliefs of Democratic Party politicians who have been in government for years and just concentrating on the (D) next to their name.

Strange, this is eerily familiar... nope can't place it

[chunksmediocrites]

David Sirota in The Guardian: Yes, let's wipe out Trump. But take neoliberal Democrats with him, too

...Democratic politicians who constantly echo courageous populist themes in speeches, news releases and election ads, and then often uses the party’s governmental power to protect the status quo and serve corporate donors in their interminable class war.

Take California: a state where Democrats control the governorship, every state constitutional office and a legislative supermajority. With healthcare premiums rising, polls show 70% of Americans support the creation of a government-sponsored healthcare system. Considering that Canada’s healthcare system first began in its provinces, California would seem a perfect place to create the first such system in the United States. There is just one problem: Democrats are using their power to shut down single-payer legislation as they rake in big money from private insurance and drug companies.

On the opposite coast, it is the same story. A solidly Democratic New York, Connecticut and New Jersey have declined to take up single payer, and have also refused to pass legislation closing special “carried interest” tax loopholes that benefit a handful of Wall Street moguls. As those tax breaks drain public revenue, state officials simultaneously plead poverty in justifying cuts to basic social safety net programs – even as they offer massive taxpayer subsidies to corporations such as Amazon and play host to an endless series of pay-to-play corruption scandals that see wealthy campaign contributors enriched at the public trough.

Even in deep blue Rhode Island – where Democrats are so dominant the 113 member legislature has only 17 Republicans – then-treasurer Gina Raimondo and her fellow Democrats chose to stake their brand on a plan that eviscerated retirement benefits for teachers, firefighters, cops and other public sector workers. Raimondo, a former financial executive whose firm received state investments, also shifted billions of dollars of public workers’ retirement savings into politically connected hedge funds and private equity firms that charge outsized fees, but often generate returns that lag a cheap stock index fund.

The primary sentiment I disagree with in the op-ed is the sentiment about making America great again- A slave society built on genocide and war profiteering with massive racial and class and sex inequalities- how about for the first time ever, maybe- and that is still a long fucking way off.