What is to be done?

[Blackhawk]

And even if they do take off the gloves to seize the upper hand, that leaves us with two competing extremist parties. I suppose that's better than meekly yielding to the fascists -- I can get behind extremism in the cause of saving democracy -- but it's not exactly an ideal outcome.

Like I said before - you exploit the hell out of the flaws in the system to fix it, and when you're done, you remove those flaws. You close the loopholes after you're done with them to make sure neither side can use them again.

[Drazzil]

The only way to get out of this is through massive politically motivated violence from the left. Unfortunately we don't have an organized left in this country so I'm gonna say... nothing. We can't do a damn thing to save this country.

Every time something doesn’t go your way, you advocate violence. Honestly, your way of thinking IS the problem. You are the very thing you rail against.

Violence got us weekends, labor laws, and just about every civil right you can name It was either violence or the threat of it.

What'd voting get anyone? Biden, global warming, shredded social safety nets and the fucking neoliberal order. Wake up man.

Martin Luther King Jr. would like you to read a history book at some point.

There would be no Martin without Malcom.

[Drazzil]

As for "what's to be done"...the steps aren't a mystery. End or modify the filibuster, pass the two voting rights bills, and expand the SCOTUS. Make DC a state. Democrats have to play the same game that the Republicans are playing (and winning). Unfortunately, they won't or can't and the clock is running out. And even if they do take off the gloves to seize the upper hand, that leaves us with two competing extremist parties. I suppose that's better than meekly yielding to the fascists -- I can get behind extremism in the cause of saving democracy -- but it's not exactly an ideal outcome.

Or I guess we can just go out and burn shit down now because that always turns out so well.

Its not about angry people burning down their own neighborhoods. That never really works. This is about making the system grind to a halt to where people cant make money. Blockade ports, clog freeways, make the cops peacefully arrrest you, or if they come with force, meet it with the same force. Most cops are cowards who love to beat and shoot peaceful protestors and unarmed POC's. When cops meet resistance, they melt and police stations burn and politicians take notice. They start to get nervous and start to wander towards changing things. Peaceful gets beaten, broken or co opted.

As far as extremism, I could quote the founding father who says something about that. I won't. Its like a big tug o war right now, only the side that stands for reason is like some person getting punched in the face over and over again. We *need* two extremist parties. We absolutely should be meeting whatever scumfuck tactics with the same sort of things. The democrats need to start arresting prominent members of the other side, as I said before its NOT prosecuting political enemies because those fuckers did the crimes. We need to impeach justices, remove and arrest politicians and investigate, arrest and try the January insurrectionists for treason. The evidence is all there, Lets fuckin pursue it.

[Jaymann]

The only way to get out of this is through massive politically motivated violence from the left. Unfortunately we don't have an organized left in this country so I'm gonna say... nothing. We can't do a damn thing to save this country.

Every time something doesn’t go your way, you advocate violence. Honestly, your way of thinking IS the problem. You are the very thing you rail against.

Violence got us weekends, labor laws, and just about every civil right you can name It was either violence or the threat of it.

What'd voting get anyone? Biden, global warming, shredded social safety nets and the fucking neoliberal order. Wake up man.

Martin Luther King Jr. would like you to read a history book at some point.

There would be no Martin without Malcom.

True.

[Kraken]

And even if they do take off the gloves to seize the upper hand, that leaves us with two competing extremist parties. I suppose that's better than meekly yielding to the fascists -- I can get behind extremism in the cause of saving democracy -- but it's not exactly an ideal outcome.

Like I said before - you exploit the hell out of the flaws in the system to fix it, and when you're done, you remove those flaws. You close the loopholes after you're done with them to make sure neither side can use them again.

You think the people who rose to power exploiting the system will dutifully fix it when the emergency passes? Augustus promised to restore the Roman senate and step aside just as soon as it was safe to do so, and that sort of became a party platform for later emperors.

Not that I see an Octavian in our future -- his reign was the best use-case ever for tyranny. That's not the tyrant we deserve.

[Drazzil]

And even if they do take off the gloves to seize the upper hand, that leaves us with two competing extremist parties. I suppose that's better than meekly yielding to the fascists -- I can get behind extremism in the cause of saving democracy -- but it's not exactly an ideal outcome.

Like I said before - you exploit the hell out of the flaws in the system to fix it, and when you're done, you remove those flaws. You close the loopholes after you're done with them to make sure neither side can use them again.

You think the people who rose to power exploiting the system will dutifully fix it when the emergency passes? Augustus promised to restore the Roman senate and step aside just as soon as it was safe to do so, and that sort of became a party platform for later emperors.

Not that I see an Octavian in our future -- his reign was the best use-case ever for tyranny. That's not the tyrant we deserve.

Lincoln did it, so did FDR, and Johnson. Id trade this current clusterfuck of a government for an Octavion, an Augustus or hell, even a Hadrian.

[Blackhawk]

Lincoln did it, so did FDR, and Johnson. Id trade this current clusterfuck of a government for an Octavion, an Augustus or hell, even a Hadrian.

But who's going to pay for the wall?

[Drazzil]

Lincoln did it, so did FDR, and Johnson. Id trade this current clusterfuck of a government for an Octavion, an Augustus or hell, even a Hadrian.

But who's going to pay for the wall?

The Senate!

[Holman]

Martin Luther King Jr. would like you to read a history book at some point.

There would be no Martin without Malcom.

You seem to be implying that the nonviolent Civil Rights movement (Martin) depended upon the threat of violence ("Malcom" [sic]) for success.

Can you explain what you mean?

[malchior]

I thought of this thread when I saw the following clip. I think this is the million dollar question. Those of us in blue states/districts often say we can't do anything because our leaders are already on board. Are they really? Maybe they pay lip service but I think we might need to go farther and push them somehow TO ACT EFFECTIVELY. We need to drive them to stop being absolutely useless. The problem is we are out of time to replace them so my thoughts revolve how do we drive political competence? I still don't know what it'll take but that is the fight we face over the next year I believe.

[Drazzil]

Martin Luther King Jr. would like you to read a history book at some point.

There would be no Martin without Malcom.

You seem to be implying that the nonviolent Civil Rights movement (Martin) depended upon the threat of violence ("Malcom" [sic]) for success.

Can you explain what you mean?

I'll give you a good one. The freedom rides where busses went into the deep south. Who do you think escorted those riders? It was dudes on motorcycles keeping the busses safe. And other people who weren't in his southern coalition often provided security in other things. I'll be damned if I can remember where I read this but I did.

[Holman]

Martin Luther King Jr. would like you to read a history book at some point.

There would be no Martin without Malcom.

You seem to be implying that the nonviolent Civil Rights movement (Martin) depended upon the threat of violence ("Malcom" [sic]) for success.

Can you explain what you mean?

I'll give you a good one. The freedom rides where busses went into the deep south. Who do you think escorted those riders? It was dudes on motorcycles keeping the busses safe. And other people who weren't in his southern coalition often provided security in other things. I'll be damned if I can remember where I read this but I did.

I've never heard of that, and I have a hard time believing that Southern state troopers and sheriffs allowed the Freedom Riders to travel with armed, independent security. That's just not how things were done.

As I understand it, the Freedom Riders were escorted by the cops themselves (or National Guard) because state governments understood the bad optics of allowing the Klan/etc to act openly against them in daylight. When those attacks came, they came at night or when a demonstration could be declared a "riot" by the cops.

There were some riders ambushed when a cop escort was unavailable. They seem not to have had any means of defending themselves.

[Blackhawk]

I'll give you a good one. The freedom rides where busses went into the deep south.

The Freedom Riders got their attention - and achieved change - by being the victims of violence, not the perpetrators.

[Blackhawk]

It wasn't a parade. It was non-stop attacks and arrests against a group who was, for the most part, trying to get lunch of go to the bathroom. Literally. They'd drive to a segregated location and go into a whites-only bathroom or lunch counter, at which time they would often be arrested or attacked. In fact, the thing that got them national attention was when one of the busses was chased out of town, the tires blown out, and then a bomb thrown inside with the passengers still in it. When they fled, they were beaten.

As I understand it, the Freedom Riders were escorted by the cops themselves (or National Guard) because state governments understood the bad optics of allowing the Klan/etc to act openly against them in daylight. When those attacks came, they came at night or when a demonstration could be declared a "riot" by the cops.

And as often as not, the cops had gotten reports when there were mobs waiting for the busses, and would end their escort before they arrived there. In other words, they'd escort them down the highway, but not into town where the attacks were actually occurring.


So not only is this not a good example for you, Drazzil, it is actually a pretty good counter-example. The people using violence were the people who lost.

[Drazzil]

Well considering that a vote means nothing these days, and the system that's lurching into Orban territory has no one in elected office to oppose it. I still believe that the Democrats and the Republicans have reached an accord since they all want the same thing, I doubt anything but an organized left willing to act from outside the system can oppose it.

I dunno about you guys but at this point I'm willing to Balkanize. Saw off the southern states like a gangrenous limb.