And removing the filibuster will serve the christo-fascist agenda just as well as anything else.

It takes one vote for the Republicans to remove the filibuster. If the Republicans gain the majority in the Senate, there is nothing the Democrats can do to stop them. It’s an honor system. The filibuster ties the hands of the pro-democracy majority. The christo-fascist minority is free to obstruct when they are out of power and free to remove it when they are in power. Which the Republicans will do, because fascists are bad-faith actors.

You can try to hand-wave it away and act like I’m pointing this out for the “sound bites” (?), but it’s simply a fact.

“They did it first!” is literally a sound bite for the press. The Republicans were always going to remove the filibuster to get Supreme Court nominations through. Blaming the Democrats based on what they did previously was a post hoc fallacy to justify their actions.

Perhaps you should look around. Half the country fully supports those christo-fascists, and they seem a lot more armed, a lot more organized, a lot more politically entrenched, and a lot more strategic.

FAAFO

You’re right, they will probably remove the filibuster when they get in power, and you’ll get your wish.

Wanting a functioning, majority rule democracy isn’t the same as a christo-fascist dictatorship. By getting rid of the filibuster under a Democrat controlled Senate we will, in theory, be able to utilize systemic change to solve existential crises such as climate change and redistribute wealth to fix wealth inequality.

So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.

No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.

she will never reach the vast majority of those people.

Unless.

She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.

Which is absolutely not what we have.

It’s not idealized, but what we have now with a federal presidential constitutional republic. There are all kinds of subcultures in the US. A person can take their pick of a religion or a culture or none at all. Everyone is free to believe and do what they want as long as they don’t harm anyone else. We protect minority groups. We don’t have a national language, thankfully, but we do have things like a national bird.

Our democracy isn’t perfect, but that’s due to systemic issues that we know how to solve, but need the political will to implement. We also need wealth redistribution in the form of taking away the source of wealth and the wealth of billionaires.

I also don’t see what you’re describing in what the other guy is saying his view is.

I recommend reading the debate in full and seeing the contradiction for yourself.

Not if I’m describing anarchy. Rather than organization coming from above, people are free to self-organize. Vanilla people can live with other vanilla people. Teaberry freaks like me can head to the hills and have teaberry.

Self-sorting into ice cream homogeneous organizations isn’t a stateless society. It’s a collection of dictatorships. In a stateless society people of different ice creams would work together independently of a state to meet their basic needs, self-actualize, etc. The difference between our democracy now and a hypothetical stateless society is the absence of a state that facilities a market economy, laws, public education, research funding, defense, etc. Everything that the state does now would be handled by systems we have yet to devise. Those systems would match goods and services, from people wanting to do those things, to people who want and/or need those goods and services.

The user’s argument boils down to that meme. “I can’t wait for society to collapse so MY ideology can rise from the ashes.” The user wants the collapse so they can get there teaberry dictatorship not a stateless society. They don’t want to just eat their favorite flavor of ice cream. They want everyone around them to have to it eat to. That is not anarchy.

People who like a subculture can already self-organize into a community. Moving from a democracy to a stateless society wouldn’t change that. What would change when moving from a democracy to a collection of dictatorships is the freedom to choose. The only way to re-sort in such a collection of dictatorships is for them to collapse further until everyone is self-isolating. At which point very little if any ice cream will be had by anyone.

Republicans are bad faith actors. They will remove the filibuster whether Democrats do it or not. The Republican’s intention is to form a christo-fascist dictatorship.

Our society is in need of systemic change and wealth redistribution. The time to act is now to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change.

All you need to change the filibuster is a majority of votes. There is no “they did it first clause” in the Constitution. That’s a post hoc justification for sound bites.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

Democrats lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for most presidential nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, when Republicans tried to debilitate the Obama administration by obstructing his cabinet picks.

Republicans lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for confirming Supreme Court nominees when the filibuster got in their way. Republicans are bad faith actors who only care about power. No amount of a safe guards will tie the hands of bad faith actors when they are in power. If Republicans take power, they will get rid of the filibuster as soon as it is convenient for them to pass legislation.

All the filibuster does is entrench minority rule even further. It makes Democrats need a supermajority when they were already representing over 41 million more voters in the Senate in 2021.

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22215728/senate-anti-democratic-one-number-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff-georgia-runoffs

41,549,808.

🖕

What a ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr5Q26E-Esw

That is correct. The Democrats need to get rid of the filibuster, since it’s unlikely for them to get 60 seats. It is another mechanism in our government that perpetuates minority rule. Another reason why we need to vote Blue in record numbers.

It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.

Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.

I like Krave jerky. Lately I’ve been eating from these smaller bags, but I don’t remember the brand name. All the fancy homemade stuff people are talking about sounds really good though.

I am not arguing anarchy is comparable to forcing everybody to follow the same political ideology. I am arguing that it would be harder for the user to impose a consensus on everyone else if they lived in a stateless society.

The user claims they want a national ice cream flavor, but then asserts anarchy is the only way to get the national ice cream flavor they want. My point is that isn’t want anarchy does. The analogy is comparing apples and oranges. Being able to eat what ice cream you want and being able to form a larger consensus around which ice cream is best is not the same thing. It’s an attempt to shoe horn in what the user actually wants while claiming it’s anarchy.

And what that user wants is an ice cream dictatorship where the teaberry dictator enforces a teaberry consensus. Currently, in a democracy, anyone can eat whatever ice cream they want. To achieve a consensus around which ice cream is the national favorite we would hold a vote. This user wants a smaller dictatorship in the mountains where there is an imposed teaberry consensus and is willing to claim this dictatorship is anarchy in order to get it.

The analogy is a false analogy and a bait-and-switch. The lure is a promise of whatever consensus anyone wants but then swaps it out for a collection of dictatorships erroneously masquerading as anarchy.

In a stateless society, there would not be any passive consensus like a national ice cream flavor because there is no state. Everyone would have their own favorite which might happen to overlap with someone else’s or might not. Everyone could get their favorite ice cream and essentials as if they were in a state based society. There would be only active consensus where people could agree to work together to avoid existential crises like a large meteor or famine.

Purse of Holding

Political science, social theory, and ice cream.

Definitely, I saw in I think another comment section people talking about seeing Christmas decorations for sale on the 30th. We must turn back the tide of Christmas cheer, back to the depths of December where it belongs! edit: typo

Woo! Vote Blue!

Anarchy is not a smaller country in the mountains where everyone agrees with you. That’s a dictatorship. And if it’s just you, you’re not getting very much ice cream if any.

You’re the one wanting a national ice cream flavor. edit: typos

It’s adorable that you think Harris is the anarchist teaberry I’m looking for.

No, Harris is the neoliberal who will incrementally improve society who is currently one point ahead. Trump the teaberry who wants to genocide as many people as possible, satisfying the condition of fewer people laid out in your argument, is currently one point behind. In other words, not in never being chosen territory.

Maybe read what we wrote when you’re not drunk and tired. You aren’t looking for an anarchist teaberry, because what your describing isn’t what an anarchist teaberry does. But it is what a teaberry dictator does.

But don’t worry, I already voted for the gallon tub of store-brand vanilla-flavored frozen dessert over the turdcicle

Congrats and thank you.

With Republican obstructionism, the only way for Democrats to get anything done is to control the House, the Senate, and presidency. Without all three, Democrats will have an ineffective government that is incapable of passing laws to solve problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8psP4S6BQ

There are limits to executive orders but they have their uses and a cool song too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0&t=7s

For them to be invaders they would have to be from somewhere else. These are home grown domestic terrorists spawned from our society and late-stage capitalism.

They are invaders in the sense they’ve invaded the minds of our friends and families with their fascist ideas.