Octopus Overlords

I’d like to thank @Sen_JoeManchin and @SenatorSinema for their sincere statements that nothing is more important to them than voting rights and that’s why they’re going to do absolutely nothing to protect them.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:48 pm Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

stessier wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:44 am It's nice to see the Left has people as crazy as Qanon followers.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:48 pm Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

My first gut reaction to your tirade (which is totally forgivable IMO, given the situation), was almost exactly in line with the replies you saw already:
1. What you are suggesting is a GOP style "dirty tricks" playbook. Not technically illegal, but certainly goes against the "spirit" of the laws and the ideals of the country. Morally distasteful.
2. If we even COULD do what you are proposing (probably not even possible), we would practically become that which we are railing so hard against. I mean, the EXACT same shit you propose is the kind of shit that is and has already happened from the right, and has propelled us along this path to authoritarianism.

I guess the difference between my take and most of the replies I have seen is that some were suggesting that we would lose the country for sure if that were to happen, and I personally think we have already crossed that line and HAVE lost.

We "won" in November, technically, but only technically, in the most superficial way. Won the battle, lost the war and all that. November (and January's) results were similar to..maybe a late war battle/skirmish/encounter that Japan or Germany won against the Allies very late during WWII. Sure, they "won", but they were already losing, or so far down the losing path that it didn't matter (though I'm sure it felt good to them at the time, if they didn't look too far down the road at their future).

So I get your overall idea, and don't disagree with asking the REALLY important question, which is:

IF we have already "lost" (and I think the failed Jan 6 commission vote is a HUGE marker for that argument), and the gears and machination, and system is now and already in place to benefit the GOP (or whatever they have become) to get re-elected and stay in power for decades to come, what are we WILLING to do to prevent that?

Anything? No, that's why you are getting all the pushback. I think your response to that is "yes - whatever it takes".

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

We tried to do it the right way, but it wasn't enough. That's a stupid fairy tale, IMO...and a dangerous idea to teach kids...that "light" always somehow magically beats "dark"...for...reasons? No, sometimes (hell, OFTEN), the good guys lose, and lose hard.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:41 pm HB 1 never had anything close to 50 votes. Once again, Manchin is serving as the tip of the spear, but there are several Democratic Senators heaving a sigh of relief right now.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:30 pm That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:52 pm Yeah. This route you propose? Its like kneeling in front of an executioners trench and waiting calmly for someone to come by to put a bullet in your head. It dooms yourself, your family, and hundreds of millions of other Americans to either live in Gilead, or fight a civil war to kill Gilead.

malchior wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:26 pmThis is unfortunately only a hypothetical because of the filibuster. I'd like to know so they can answer for their position.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:30 pmFill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:30 pm That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Little Raven wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:38 pm Not so much because I think what's going on isn't bad...I just don't think it's new. We're not falling apart at the seams so much as reverting to a pre-Cold War default.

Holman wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:22 pm

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:52 pm Yeah. This route you propose? Its like kneeling in front of an executioners trench and waiting calmly for someone to come by to put a bullet in your head. It dooms yourself, your family, and hundreds of millions of other Americans to either live in Gilead, or fight a civil war to kill Gilead.

This is the kind of unrealistic talk that earns you an 11.

The Right doesn't want to be 1940s Germany running a Holocaust on dissidents and designated Others. It wants to be late-1800s America: the rich getting ever richer, workers employed but powerless, foreign policy determined by economics alone, and Christian whites unchallenged as the arbiters of culture and public life. Add to it that everyone will still be well entertained, so revolution will just feel like too much work.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:46 pm

Little Raven wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:38 pm Not so much because I think what's going on isn't bad...I just don't think it's new. We're not falling apart at the seams so much as reverting to a pre-Cold War default.

I'm sure that will be consolation for all the currently disenfranchised or those about to become even moreso.

Whatever happens is probably not going to have a massive impact on my middle aged, hetero, financial stable, white guy day-to-day life. Those who fall in literally any other category in this country run the risk of feeling significant pain due to the voting rights that are being stripped wholesale by the GOP while assholes like Manchin stand idly by and shrug.

Your world might not fall apart at the seams, but I'm not so sure it will be the same for others.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:30 pm That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:02 pm ROFL!!! ROFLROFLROFL!!!

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:23 pmIf you have trouble with the word "alarmist", please offer an alternative. I guess it depends on your definition. If you subscribe to the one that harps on "needless" alarm, then I'm out. Totally needed!! (sayeth the alarmist

But this one seems to fit the bill pretty well:

Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat.

In my particular case, it's exaggerated alarm about a VERY real threat. OTOH, if you are facing a very real threat, is the implication that we shouldn't be alarmed? Or maybe just not alarmed in "an exaggerated manner"?! WTF.

If you believe we face a threat that is real, and are alarmed, then I guess we are just arguing about scale. HOW alarmed are you? Excessively? Minimally? Who's measuring that shit?! Apparently me, now, with my handy dandy Alarm-o-Meter(TM)

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 5:46 pmI'm sure that will be consolation for all the currently disenfranchised or those about to become even moreso.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:25 am Experts fretting about the end of American democracy isn't new either.

Obviously, you can't get complacent - Democracy is a participatory event, after all. But none of this is new.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:47 amThere have always been doomsayers and a couple of difficult periods of hyper partisanship.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:03 am

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:47 amThere have always been doomsayers and a couple of difficult periods of hyper partisanship.

Doomsayers? THAT'S how you categorize Toynbee and Lippmann? But a Washington Post article about "100 experts" is a hill worth dying on?

Joe Manchin is once again playing the role of the Grinch who stole the chance to save democracy. In a op-ed today in the Charleston Mail-Gazette, Manchin reiterated his position that he will not vote to pass a voting rights bill without Republican support, and will not vote to weaken the filibuster.

His stated reason, ironically, is that to do so would be a threat to democracy itself and “tear the nation apart.” The key quote from Manchin’s op-ed is as follows:

Unfortunately, we now are witnessing that the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized. Today’s debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.

As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.

Many have taken a cynical or materialist approach to analyzing Manchin’s position, speculating about his donors, re-election prospects or potential sinecures. But this is probably overthinking it. Manchin is comfortably wealthy; he doesn’t have donor networks outside the normal for Senators; the GOP is going to come furiously for his seat in conservative West Virginia no matter what he does; and all of blue America is so desperate for his cooperation that he would have no problems securing a comfortably lucrative position in retirement.

Most of those who know Manchin closely indicate that he truly believes what he says: that he is the one saving democracy from collapse by keeping partisanship from tearing the country apart. As he said today on Face the Nation in an interview with CBS’ John Dickerson:

The bottom line is the fundamental purpose of- of our democracy is the freedom of our elections. If we can’t come to an agreement on that, God help us, John. And someone’s got to fight for this. And we’ve got to say, listen, the divided country that we’re in today, the insurrection that we saw on January the 6th, if we don’t try to heal that, if we don’t make every effort and go beyond the call of duty, then what are we and who are we? We’ve been known to go around the world and promote democracy and observe other elections. What kind of credibility do you think we have in doing that today? So I’m going to fight for this and I think the Republicans will fight for this and understand we must come together on a voting rights bill in a bipartisan way. You can’t divide our country further by thinking you’ve given leeway to one or the other.

In the interest of good faith, let us take Manchin at his word and presume that he honestly believes what he says here.

The problem is that this way of thinking about the politics of voting rights is deeply dangerous. It is the logic of appeasement, of caving to the demands of hostage takers and perpetrators of political violence. It literally legitimizes insurrectionists and gives credence to their platform in an effort to placate them.

The right to vote didn’t become “politicized” out of nowhere. Republicans politicized it because they are fundamentally opposed to democracy. There is no negotiating with that position. You cannot heal it by appeasing it.

Democrats aren’t immorally restricting the franchise to tilt the balance of power unjustly in the favor; Republicans are. Democrats aren’t telling lies about who won the last election; Republicans are. Liberal activists didn’t foment a violent insurrection against the United States to prevent the formal certification of an election; conservatives did. The left isn’t in the thrall of vile propaganda networks and social media cults accusing their opponents of intentionally unleashing a pandemic in cooperation with the Chinese, or of running a global Satanic pedophile cabal; the right is. There is no “both sides” to play here, and therefore no compromise to be had.

You can’t heal the problems that created the January 6th insurrection by caving to the demands of those who helped to enable it. In an alternate universe where Republicans were acting in good faith and serious about “securing” our elections, you might see a bipartisan voting rights bill that included anti-gerrymandering reforms and universal voter registration, plus a free national ID card for every citizen for voter verification and stricter transparency over electronic voting machines. But we don’t live in that universe, because Republicans don’t actually care about securing elections. They want to be able to continue to dominate policy and ensure that older white evangelical conservatives remain in total control despite being heavily outnumbered. They’re opposed to democracy itself.

The partisan aggression is entirely one-sided. Asymmetric polarization has been occurring for decades since at least the Gingrich era if not Nixon himself, but the age of Trump has accelerated it to mach speed. Republican state legislatures are moving fast to harden themselves against any form of public accountability, not only suppressing votes but setting themselves up to deny even the possibility of certifying Democratic wins in states that are rapidly turning blue. The Republican Attorney General in Texas just said that if he hadn’t sued to stop mail ballots from being sent out to every voter, Trump would have lost Texas–an open admission that stopping people from voting was essential to Republican victory.

It’s important to note here that Republicans could moderate their policies and positions to try to win a majority of voters. That’s how politics are supposed to work. They just refuse to. They already have enormous institutional advantages in the Senate and in the Electoral College, both of which tilt heavily in their favor. To win a majority of Senate seats and electoral college votes even in under otherwise fair rules, Democrats must already appeal to voters well to the right of the national median. The deck is already stacked heavily in conservatives’ favor even without explicit cheating. gerrymandering or suppression. But they can’t even bring themselves to become moderate enough to win majorities of an R+4 tilted electorate. They insist on permanent rule no matter how much their numbers shrink. At a policy level, they insist on ruling mostly to advantage only their own voters and to make liberals explicitly suffer–and they want to inoculate themselves from electoral backlash after doing it.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:45 amDemocrats need to over-perform in the mid-terms by gaining seats, not losing them. We effectively got a tie in 2020 and that’s not enough.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:45 am Democrats need to over-perform in the mid-terms by gaining seats, not losing them. We effectively got a tie in 2020 and that’s not enough.

McConnell kicks off his weekly presser: “It’s pretty clear the era of bipartisanship is over...”

Calls Paycheck Fairness Act (expected time be filibustered by Senate Rs later today) “essentially a giveaway to plaintiff lawyers in America.”