American Politics

[purpledragonclaw]

27 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

So again, you're only focusing on third party voters rather than doing anything to convince people to vote for Biden, which you've stated is, in your view, our only defense against the fascists (the fascists Biden has encouraged so far). My repeated point has been that shaming people who are reasonably upset and misrepresenting them is an unemphatic, losing tactic, and I'd think that people who are so insistent on this being our only hope would want that feedback.

 

 

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying? I'm talking about the rise of Nazism and fascism in America. That the GOP is nurturing and supporting. That will happen with Project 2025. Biden isn't encouraging that. 

 

Trump is already threatening another January 6th if he loses. Biden isn't encouraging that.

 

Third-party voters vote that way for such a myriad of reasons that I'm not going to say they're the sole problem. I'll say they're part of the problem, though. I just posted why the GOP is supporting West and Stein, and continue to do so for those I speak to who want to vote third-party. I'll continue to tell people the dangers of voting third-party, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

I only kept bringing up third-party voters once you mentioned West and why he is appealing to third-party voters.

 

27 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

I didn't come up with genocide Joe; it's a trend, you might not have been aware.

 

I'm very well aware of this, along with the various nicknames for Trump. It came from the Gaza protests.

 

27 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

I'm not here to start another argument. But I will keep commenting on focusing on third party voters, and not even focusing on reaching out to them, but blaming them, when many of them are the most marginalized people in the country, and the most impacted by US violence.

 

You are here arguing your point. You've already started the argument. You're continuing the argument. 

 

27 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

I don't know that Genocide Trump will be worse than Genocide Joe, actually - nothing you've shared so far proves that. Joe has a higher casualty rate so far.

 

Are you just looking at Palestine or are you including the other genocides I mentioned? Because Palestine has been happening under Trump too. And Trump will end the Ukrainian conflict by handing it over to Putin. He'll hand Palestine over to Israel. Trump's said he'd do these things. Those who think Trump will be better than Biden with Israel do not realize how much Trump and Netanyahu are aligned in their vision. Not to mention North Korea. And single-issue voters who vote third-party or for Trump based on Biden's actions with regards to Israel are in for an unwelcome surprise should Trump win.

Edited June 24 by purpledragonclaw

[dracornithologist]

16 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying? I'm talking about the rise of Nazism and fascism in America. That the GOP is nurturing and supporting. That will happen with Project 2025. Biden isn't encouraging that. 

 

I think we're both feeling misunderstood; I keep feeling that you are misrepresenting me and not engaging with my very real fears of the way Biden contributes to fascism, in the US (things I've sourced and talked about so far, but don't have the computer in front of me to get into: restricted voter rights, immigrant detention, criminalization of protest and dissent, abandonment of the population to COVID, putting COVID funds to indiscriminately fund fascist police). I'm sorry for not making you feel like I'm taking seriously your fear of fascism, but I'm seeing fascism on both sides, and my fears are not being taken seriously. You're not obligated to, but that's why I'm continuing the argument. 

 

20 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Third-party voters vote that way for such a myriad of reasons that I'm not going to say they're the sole problem. I'll say they're part of the problem, though. I just posted why the GOP is supporting West and Stein, and continue to do so for those I speak to who want to vote third-party. I'll continue to tell people the dangers of voting third-party, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

I only kept bringing up third-party voters once you mentioned West and why he is appealing to third-party voters.

 

So yes, your response (and several others' here) when I've brought up that people have real reasons (more than one) to not vote for Biden has been to explain how that's dangerous, and then the conversation keeps returning to shaming them and misrepresenting their principles and theories (for example, painting them as single issue voters). That's what I'm pushing back on, and what I'm trying to say I will continue to push back on - because I believe that is an ineffective way to try to get third party voters to do something different. Again, I want to acknowledge that the political involvement you've described sounds cool, and it sounds like you're doing a lot. I don't want to discount that, and you are not the sole source of the behavior I'm pushing back on.

 

But when one person, who isn't saying "vote third party" or even "I'm voting third party" brings up the real reservations people have, and asks others to pressure the party to give a good response, so that we can retain votes, that one person gets shouted down, misrepresented, and treated pretty callously (I am trying to be vulnerable and empathetic, and I've had very little understanding extended back towards me) - and not just on this forum, it's something I've seen broadly. I see that as a problem, and I'm trying to point that out.

 

31 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

Are you just looking at Palestine or are you including the other genocides I mentioned? Because Palestine has been happening under Trump too. And Trump will end the Ukrainian conflict by handing it over to Putin. He'll hand Palestine over to Israel. Trump's said he'd do these things. Those who think Trump will be better than Biden with Israel do not realize how much Trump and Netanyahu are aligned in their vision. Not to mention North Korea. And single-issue voters who vote third-party or for Trump based on Biden's actions with regards to Israel are in for an unwelcome surprise should Trump win.

 

I'm taking into account that Genocide Joe has a headstart of several decades of war crimes and genocide on Genocide Trump. I'm thinking about global impact and casualties. I'm thinking about COVID deaths. That's what I'm looking at. 

 

I'm not sure how that keeps sounding like "single issue".

[purpledragonclaw]

20 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

I'm taking into account that Genocide Joe has a headstart of several decades of war crimes and genocide on Genocide Trump. I'm thinking about global impact and casualties. I'm thinking about COVID deaths. That's what I'm looking at. 

 

 

Everyone here has repeatedly stated that everything you mentioned will continue and be worse under Trump. Trump's covid response was abhorrent. And that first article you linked? That was under Trump. The election hadn't happened yet. (I'm referencing the whistleblower complaint from the Dept. of Homeland Security.)

 

I also have a better nickname for Trump: Nazi.

 

 

21 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

I'm not sure how that keeps sounding like "single issue".

 

Because when you've been representing why Biden is bad you keep bringing up Israel. But I know of people voting third-party because of Biden's handling of Gaza. I'm telling those people Trump will be far worse.

 

I remember a good metaphor between Democrats and Republicans: Republicans will inflict greater pain faster, and Democrats will do it by a thousand tiny cuts. Both have the same end-result. We're choosing arsenic over strychnine. 

 

All this convo reinforces is the system, as I've stated before, is rotten. That happens when money controls both parties. I also feel for @Fuzzbucket because I follow UK politics and know they're not much better. 

[Fuzzbucket]

"Decades" can't be Biden's fault; he's only been there for 4 years. But genocide is NOT the worst thing - ghastly though it is. I did not that you said you are trying to draw votes away from Trump - that can on;ly be good. But Biden really is the only option to get shot of Trump (unless the Dems put up someone else in time.) Trump as a threat to democracy is worse than anything Biden has to offer.

 

I have to say I have seen no evidence of actual fascism on Biden's side. (and BTW antifa doesn't actually exist as a "movement" - it's a meaningless term politicians use when they can't come up with another. That happens on all sides.) The DHS needs root and branch reform. I THINK Biden has even said that is needed, but I cant' source it. I would like to know who wrote that article in the Monthly Review. It reminds me very much of the language a well known political stirrer journalist in the UK uses to try and encourage third party voting - in his case, to vote for people so left wing that (while I would actually be glad of such a government at the moment, to undo some of the damage the UK has undergone) it would let the incumbents back in if enough people followed his advice; The guy is as self-interested as the people he hopes to depose. We need some consensus politics; genuine disussion and research and - doing it properly, not just trying to WIN all the time - that's true EVERYWHERE.

[dracornithologist]

12 minutes ago, purpledragonclaw said:

 

Everyone here has repeatedly stated that everything you mentioned will continue and be worse under Trump. Trump's covid response was abhorrent. And that first article you linked? That was under Trump. The election hadn't happened yet. (I'm referencing the whistleblower complaint from the Dept. of Homeland Security.)

 

I also have a better nickname for Trump: Nazi.

 

 

 

Because when you've been representing why Biden is bad you keep bringing up Israel. But I know of people voting third-party because of Biden's handling of Gaza. I'm telling those people Trump will be far worse.

 

I remember a good metaphor between Democrats and Republicans: Republicans will inflict greater pain faster, and Democrats will do it by a thousand tiny cuts. Both have the same end-result. We're choosing arsenic over strychnine. 

 

All this convo reinforces is the system, as I've stated before, is rotten. That happens when money controls both parties. I also feel for @Fuzzbucket because I follow UK politics and know they're not much better. 

 

Yes, the system is rotten. It seems counterproductive, then, to shame and blame others who are disillusioned with the system.

 

Nazi is a good word for Trump. Genocide Joe and Nazi Trump. Let me know if another occurs to you. 

 

The article I linked was a warning about what would happen during Biden's presidency, and what has happened - the described ratchet effect that has so empowered Republicans to lean towards fascism. 

 

@Fuzzbucket, I say decades because Biden has a decades long history of participating in war crimes. He is a careerist politician, and his career (sourced in the many, many links in my previous comments) is what gives Genocide Joe a headstart on Nazi Trump. 

 

The article I linked is relevant political analysis that was meant to inform and warn - a warning that didn't work, because Biden oversaw everything I listed before and that people keep ignoring ("things I've sourced and talked about so far, but don't have the computer in front of me to get into: restricted voter rights, immigrant detention, criminalization of protest and dissent, abandonment of the population to COVID, putting COVID funds to indiscriminately fund fascist police").

 

But okay, like I've said, I'm hoping my fears won't be substantiated. I'm trying to demonstrate that I understand y'all's fears, and I hope for a future where we are supporting each other through surviving Biden's impacts on the world post November instead of Nazi Trump. But even if we get there - Genocide Joe can't keep the day to day promises he's been making so far, let alone the emptier ones he's sure to continue making. Keeping in mind the ratchet effect linked above, and that Biden and the Democratic party more largely, has set the stage, legally, for Republicans to enact fascism, what happens after Biden's second term, when all other major leftist movements have been continuously shut down? It sounds like the best we're hoping for is delaying *full blown* fascism for four more years, and four more years of the most marginalized people of our society being abandoned. I really hope it's different, but again, the first step to convincing people to act politically in solidarity with you is to take their concerns seriously, not misrepresent, misunderstand, and shout them down. At least, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

27 minutes ago, dracornithologist said:

Yes, the system is rotten. It seems counterproductive, then, to shame and blame others who are disillusioned with the system.

 

No indeed. But there comes a time when the rottenness is so awful that the crucial thing is to start with the least worst option available and then work our BUTTS off to raise that option to be better. Rinse and repeat.

[AsymDoll13]

Stop this.

 

Separation of church and state is a thing right? Or am I going insane?

[Diggie]

I don't usually post here, but the Chevron decision being overturned has me speechless. One of the most landmark cases for the protection of the public and the environment, and it's gone.

[purplehaze]

41 minutes ago, Diggie said:

I don't usually post here, but the Chevron decision being overturned has me speechless. One of the most landmark cases for the protection of the public and the environment, and it's gone.

Precedent seems to mean nothing to this court. This was a very frightening decision. It guts all sorts of regulations that have been set up to protect us.

 

Make no mistake -- Trump did this. And another 4 years of him in the White House would be even more devastating!

Edited Saturday at 03:18 PM by purplehaze

[AsymDoll13]

Can someone explain the Chevron case to me? I'm unsure of exactly what it means... 

 

From what I gathered, it meant that the various states could decide what to do environmentally? Or am I totally off? 

[trystan]

so it used to be if there were ambiguous laws regarding wildlife and game, or emissions with corporations or something like that, the Fish and Game Commission; or the EPA would decide what's right, or who was in the right.  Now, since the Supreme Court overruled that, individual judges can now decide what's or who was in the right.  yep - judges.  not the agencies that would oversee the situation.  judges.  who (supposedly) have law degrees.

 

found a link for you:  https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/go-fish-us-supreme-court-overturns-chevron-deference-federal-agencies-what-it-means-employers

Then:  "Previously, courts were required to defer to agency regulations if the language of the statute at issue was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation was “reasonable.”"

Now:  "In Loper Bright, the Court’s majority held that courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute merely because the statute is ambiguous. A court must exercise independent judgment in interpreting a statute and reviewing the agency interpretation of the statute."  (bold mine)

(The Jackson Lewis Affirmative Action & OFCCP Law Advisor is a place where you can keep up with the latest developments in Affirmative Action law, enforcement, regulations and strategy as well as receive analysis and commentary regarding equal employment opportunity issues and developments from our attorneys.)

 

from the NY Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3U0.UyFe.Z0m9Q_3uDFW9&smid=url-share)

"The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

"The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call “the administrative state.”

"The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries.

"“If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. “And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.”"

 

Edited Saturday at 08:50 PM by trystan

[AsymDoll13]

7 hours ago, trystan said:

so it used to be if there were ambiguous laws regarding wildlife and game, or emissions with corporations or something like that, the Fish and Game Commission; or the EPA would decide what's right, or who was in the right.  Now, since the Supreme Court overruled that, individual judges can now decide what's or who was in the right.  yep - judges.  not the agencies that would oversee the situation.  judges.  who (supposedly) have law degrees.

 

found a link for you:  https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/go-fish-us-supreme-court-overturns-chevron-deference-federal-agencies-what-it-means-employers

Then:  "Previously, courts were required to defer to agency regulations if the language of the statute at issue was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation was “reasonable.”"

Now:  "In Loper Bright, the Court’s majority held that courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute merely because the statute is ambiguous. A court must exercise independent judgment in interpreting a statute and reviewing the agency interpretation of the statute."  (bold mine)

(The Jackson Lewis Affirmative Action & OFCCP Law Advisor is a place where you can keep up with the latest developments in Affirmative Action law, enforcement, regulations and strategy as well as receive analysis and commentary regarding equal employment opportunity issues and developments from our attorneys.)

 

from the NY Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.html?unlocked_article_code=1.3U0.UyFe.Z0m9Q_3uDFW9&smid=url-share)

"The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

"The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call “the administrative state.”

"The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries.

"“If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. “And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.”"

 

 

Judges? What the heck America?

 

Thank you for explaining!

[trystan]

3 minutes ago, AsymDoll13 said:

Judges? What the heck America?

Thank you for explaining!

exactly. *rolls eyes*

you're welcome.  explaining it helped me understand it better too.

[AsymDoll13]

Cuz I looked it up earlier and went "huh??" lol. I'm not great at politics; they're not history. Well... not the type of history I like anyway. 

 

But that's a terrible idea... to let just judges do things? Nope. 

[trystan]

I get that.  some of these things i need explained to me like I'm 5.

 

16 hours ago, AsymDoll13 said:

But that's a terrible idea... to let just judges do things? Nope. 

agreed.