Are you saying we should vote a third party or not bother voting at all and get more engaged in local stuff? You both seem not to like either party much so what would you recommend the average person do? — John McMannis

Become an activist. Educate yourself and others, organize with others. Identify programs you want and push for them. This is done all the time, if you look around. It was especially prevalent in the 60s, and much of the progress we see today comes from exactly those movements. One example today is the climate change movement -- the Sunrise Movement and one I'm involved with, 350.org (founded by Bill McKibben) -- where pressure from below is pushing more and more candidates to propose ambitious legislation. This is currently happening too slowly and will either entirely fail or get whittled down to nothing, predictably, but that's missing the point. (Ask yourself what climate provisions would have even been on the table under a Trump administration?) The point is to continuously create and push for programs you want, on the national, state, and local level. Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored.

As for voting: there are two political parties in the United States. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned, and I agree with, an activist should take two minutes to see which candidate is worse, and vote against that candidate -- then get back to the important work of educating and organizing. Voting is important, but hardly any more important than those two minutes. You should do it, then move on. Not voting, or voting third party in a swing state, is helping the worse candidate succeed -- period. That's just arithmetic. Idealists and purists simply cannot understand this, so there's no use arguing over it. But the choice is a simple one. It's not an endorsement of the Democratic party, or Joe Biden. It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. Those who want to claim the Republicans and Democrats are the same are, likewise, deluding themselves.

I'm hoping to become more involved myself but not sure where to start. — John McMannis

Start locally. There's far too much time and energy spent on national politics, where an individual can do very little. You can do much more at the local and state level. But it's not only local politics/government worth focusing on -- it's also the corporate interests that essentially own and direct much of the government. Real power today lies not only in political power but in economic power, and the heart of that is the corporation -- because that's where the real money flows (and money talks). If you work for a corporation, or even a smaller company, get to know how they work -- understand the administrative structure of boards of directors and executives. You mentioned elsewhere that you had been approached by a coworker to start a union -- as I said, that's an excellent idea. Educate yourself about how to unionize.

Most importantly is to talk with other people. It's next to impossible to do it all yourself, especially when there are plenty of other responsibilities one has in life. This idea of individualism is foisted upon us to keep us isolated. This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. They coordinate with their class all the time to maintain their power, and they always look after each other. The middle and working classes have been conditioned to fear and hate their own members, but they can do the same. Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. There's a real world out there, with real people, and it's worth joining.

Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored. — Xtrix

It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. — Xtrix

This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. — Xtrix

The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. — Xtrix

Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. — Xtrix

:cheer: :fire: :100: Emphasis added.

What to do? Break that cycle, and more importantly, break it from the left (the democrats are not a left party - they are a conservative party, just FYI). If that means not voting, so be it. People like Xtrix will try to hold you hostage and gaslight you: if you don't vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power. But it's farce. If you vote for the democrats, the republicans will come into power anyway, because the function of the democratic party is defuse left energy (which the republican party can't do), and then, one that's done, actively pave the way for republican victories after that. That's their objective role in American political life. They're the rear-guard of republican political power. — StreetlightX

thanks for the thoughtful response. So if what you say is true, then it seems pointless to vote for either party. Seems like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. I'm basically an independent voter when I do vote, which has only been a few years and my first time was for Obama in 2012 but I didn't feel anything changed. Then we got Trump who I really don't like much although I don't know about his policies. It seemed things became more polarized after obama so it does seem like you're right. But I do think that it's better in other ways to have biden in office even though not much seems to be happening. Maybe that just makes it worse, I don't know. It's really confusing to me. I think this is why a lot of people don't vote haha

Far more interesting that anything the Democrats have been doing is workers strikes all over the US. Capitalism is a wage relation, and it is over wages and workplace rights that anything will be won. — StreetlightX

Why? This seems a lot harder than voting and stuff, to me anyway. If I could vote for a different CEO I would, but that's not how it works. If I ask for more money, they can just can my ass. I live in a right to work state, so they're not big fans of workplace rights and unions. I guess I could just quit if I really hated it, but it's hard to get other work.

Discuss your wages with your fellow workers. Join your union. Build networks of worker solidarity. Never hate on the poor or the uneducated, not matter how silly their antics can be. Power is always the enemy. Know that bosses are not your friends. Keep yourself informed. Refuse, at all costs, the fake distinction between liberal and conservative. Educate yourself, and, just casually, those around you when the opportunity arises. — StreetlightX

Thanks, I think this is good advice and I'm going to make it a goal to read up on things more and talk to others about it. That seems to be the advice I'm getting from a lot of people. I never identify as conservative or liberal and don't even like talking politics much because I don't know that much about it. What's some good news sources in your view?

Also for the love of God never call yourself an activist. An activist is someone too non-committal and pussy to call themselves a socialist outright. Hitler's brownshirts were activists. 'Activism' is liberal code for: ineffective tinkerer of the status quo. — StreetlightX

Damn. I never thought of it that way. I have always admired Martin Luther king and people like that. A lot is made of greta Thuneberg these days too and I think she's a cool person. I always considered these examples of activism but maybe it does stay on the surface of things without knowing it, or maybe having the wrong goals. Or maybe they're not activists in the sense you mean but are still active? Is it more the label you don't like or do you think Greta and Jane Fonda and people like that are just full of it?

Maybe pick a couple of books - Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal! is probably one of the better antidotes to Blue MAGA people like Xtrix. Or even something like Red State Revolt, which shows how worker movements can and do flourish in so-called red states. Or even Chris Hedges, who is a nice popular writer on these topics: https://www.amazon.com/America-Farewell-Tour-Chris-Hedges/dp/1501152688/ — StreetlightX

Hey thanks, I have heard of Chris Hedges but not the others. I'll check them out for sure!

If you ever come across someone pretending to be non-partisan in regards to a two-party fight, and yet they claim one of the parties is a shill for the other, that person is a shill for the party they did not attack. — James Riley

Do you mean like what Streetlightx said or something else? Are you saying he is a shill for the republican party because he attacked the democrats? this is a confusing issue for me. I feel like Democrats align more with my values and say things I agree with more. Bernie sanders is a good guy I think and what he was saying in 2016 and 2020. Elizebeth warren too. Mayor Pete and Andrew Yang seemed like they had interesting ideas too although I don't follow them closely. Most of what Trump was talking about seemed lacking in substance. But maybe it's better to let the republicans take over so that people fight back against it? I don't really know.

Become an activist. Educate yourself and others, organize with others. Identify programs you want and push for them. This is done all the time, if you look around. It was especially prevalent in the 60s, and much of the progress we see today comes from exactly those movements. — Xtrix

Geez. I like what you're saying but what if activism is just a phony thing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Not saying I believe that but what if?

The point is to continuously create and push for programs you want, on the national, state, and local level. Anyone who wants to deny activism as the essential part of progress should simply be ignored. — Xtrix

Is this in reference to the other response I got from street light? Because he is saying the opposite almost. What if we just take away the word activism and just say fighting and organizing and stuff, like you're saying. I think you both agree with that but cal it different things.

As for voting: there are two political parties in the United States. As Noam Chomsky has mentioned, and I agree with, an activist should take two minutes to see which candidate is worse, and vote against that candidate -- then get back to the important work of educating and organizing. Voting is important, but hardly any more important than those two minutes. You should do it, then move on. Not voting, or voting third party in a swing state, is helping the worse candidate succeed -- period. That's just arithmetic. Idealists and purists simply cannot understand this, so there's no use arguing over it. But the choice is a simple one. It's not an endorsement of the Democratic party, or Joe Biden. It's a vote against the Republican party, who are even worse. Those who want to claim the Republicans and Democrats are the same are, likewise, deluding themselves. — Xtrix

This does make sense to me. In other words just vote against Trump or people like him but don't make a big deal about it and don't pretend that joe biden is so great? That's kind of where I am at in how I feel about them but yet pretty pessimistic about anything big changing in my life.

Most importantly is to talk with other people. It's next to impossible to do it all yourself, especially when there are plenty of other responsibilities one has in life. This idea of individualism is foisted upon us to keep us isolated. This is why there's such a sense of hopelessness, because even though people recognize the problems they feel they can't do anything about it, being just one person. This is by design. The most powerful people on earth are not individualists, they're socialists. They coordinate with their class all the time to maintain their power, and they always look after each other. The middle and working classes have been conditioned to fear and hate their own members, but they can do the same. Don't let yourself be pulled into this demonizing of collectivism, nor be fooled by the illusion of connection pushed by social media companies. There's a real world out there, with real people, and it's worth joining. — Xtrix

I'll definitely take this advice. Any suggestions on how best to get involved locally or how to break into the conversation with people about this stuff? It's not so easy for me.

Do you mean like what Streetlightx said or something else? Are you saying he is a shill for the republican party because he attacked the democrats? — John McMannis

Yes and yes.

But maybe it's better to let the republicans take over so that people fight back against it? — John McMannis

I used to think that the best way to turn a Republican was to give him what he prayed for. But that was working under the mistaken idea that people would learn and not double down. You see them dying of Covid in the hospital saying Covid is a hoax and they don't have it. Another example is Trump. We kept saying the bar could not get any lower and then "boom!" it dropped. That happened for five years and it's still happening. Now we are numb to it and there has been a complete reset to a new baseline where January 6th was just a bunch of tourists. :roll:

But I do think that it's better in other ways to have biden in office even though not much seems to be happening. Maybe that just makes it worse, I don't know. It's really confusing to me. I think this is why a lot of people don't vote haha — John McMannis

That's fair! It's both confusing and not, in that if you do a little digging, it's not too hard to figure out where things stand with everyone. But alot of mainstream sources are not very good, and keep the important issues out of the limelight, which makes that "digging" a far tougher exercise than it ought to be. As for voting or not voting, you should absolutely make your own mind up. But don't be allow yourself to be blackmailed with the idea that you have to vote for the democrats because if you don't, the republicans will get into power. Anyway, someone came up with a handy-dandy graphic that's well worth posting:



Only problem with this image is that it makes it seem that the democrats only work to block things. That's not true. They get things done. Like handing enormous sums of public money to private interests.

Why? This seems a lot harder than voting and stuff, to me anyway. If I could vote for a different CEO I would, but that's not how it works. If I ask for more money, they can just can my ass. I live in a right to work state, so they're not big fans of workplace rights and unions. I guess I could just quit if I really hated it, but it's hard to get other work.

It is alot harder. And it's been made so it is that way. But it's also alot more effective! Check out what is happening with the John Deere strikers atm - their industrial action secured almost double the way raises they were being offered, and they're still striking for more. Or else look at the successes of the Chicago teacher's strike. Hard work in, good results out.

Obviously not everyone is in the position to take industrial action. And the very fact that industrial action is mass action speaks to how hard it is for any one person, alone, to get things done. Alot of the work involves preparation and getting your principles in order so that when occasions arise, you do make the right choices. That seemingly 'wild' ideas like striking dont't seem so wild, if it ever comes to that. And cultivating solidarity and class consciousness with others like yourself in your community. You won't change the world by yourself. And that's OK. To find joy in a world geared towards making you miserable is a radical act. Joy and self-care is radical. Moreso if its shared. Also, it took literal centuries to end Feudalism. We will win because our timescales are geographic!

Liberals like our blue MAGA friends in this thread have a time-horizon of whatever next big political conference is coming up, organized by the powers that be as they ferry themselves there in jets and private cars.

We will win because our timescales are geographic!

Liberals like our blue MAGA friends in this thread have a time-horizon of whatever next big political conference is coming up, organized by the powers that be as they ferry themselves there in jets and private cars. — StreetlightX

I have a time horizon of 10-20 years, in which we need to transform both the energy sector and agriculture if we want to survive. We don’t have 100 years to end neo-feudalism. If you’re not factoring that in you’re simply not serious.

True, having democrats or progressives in office may accomplish nothing or even make things worse. If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless.

But the reality is we live in a two-party system that won’t change in our lifetime. Unfortunately we have to vote against one or the other. Republicans want to drill more and deny climate change is real— that’s worth voting against. Very simple stuff, and says absolutely nothing about being in favor of the Democratic Party.

If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless. — Xtrix

Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope.

Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope. — StreetlightX

Then again, hope, like prayer, is not a strategy.

Perpetuating a cycle of planetary death while pretending to do the opposite is less so.

Pepetuating a cycle of planetary death while pretending to do the opposite is less so. — StreetlightX

I agree. But, like I said, prayer, like hope, is not a strategy. What might be even worse than either, is if your pretense to objection to planetary death is actually a ruse and you are trying to aid those who kill the planet.

I typed up the following some time ago and was going to ask this question of . But I see his post count isn't much longer than mine, so I don't know if he can even answer it. Further, I also got to the point where I don't really care enough about you or your opinions to spend too much time ruminating on the answer. But since I had, some days ago, wondered about it enough type it up, I'll just toss it out there, stream of consciousness:

I used to be an opponent of the two-party system (actually writing myself in for lack of a better alternative) and I still am. However, I can see the benefit that a party provides. If some guy or gal were pulled off the street and made POTUS, they’d be overwhelmed by the professional pols on each side, not to mention a bureaucracy that often seems to stand on its own. So a party can fill appointments, run interference, caution and guide an innocent babe who was tossed into a fire of conniving and deceit. The supply their own party expert conniving and deceit. Any other option and the babe gets eaten alive. That is where party comes in.

Stepping back, on the outside of the U.S. looking in, it seems easy to take pot shots at those who participate in the U.S. system. Objectively, it’s possible those pot shots are warranted and good critique. However, before putting too much stock in the opinions of such a sniper, it would be interesting to know if that sniper is indeed the objective player he pretends to be.

The only way to answer this question is to look back at their history and see if they were equally as accurate and sustained in their fire when the opposite party was in power in the U.S. If not, then it seems clear, they are just another party-player trying to sew division and weakness within the party at which they are currently shooting.

Serious question: Was StreetlightX around during the Trump Administration, doling it out objectively then, like he pretends to be doing now, while Biden tries to herd cats? Or is he really just working Putin’s game of disrupting civic, civil, progressive, anti-fascist sentiment?

I would ask him, but I am currently vetting him, to decide if he is what he purports to be.

The idea that the U.S. has some real and substantial problems, and that the two parties are indistinguishable from a certain perspective, has merit. But if those problems and the lack of distinction are simply tools being used to further undermine and divide, without the offer of a viable, constructive criticism, then it’s easier to flush him down the toilet.

So I ask, what this StreetlightX running around poking holes like this when Trump and company were running the show? I’d like to know, but not bad enough to go back and read all his posts from years ago.

Should I flush him down the toilet, or concern myself with his drivel?

My post history is literally open for all to see. The forum even provides a search function. It's worth asking what it says about someone though, who cannot even fathom the idea that a critque of the democrats could be motivated by anything other than some conspiritorial foreign-agent red-scaring. Nonetheless your stockholm syndrome is not my problem. Ignore away.

My post history is literally open for all to see. — StreetlightX

I stipulated to that. But like I intimated, digging through 5 years of posts is not my thing. I just thought if someone had been familiar with you all that time, they could toss in their two cents.

It's worth asking what it says about someone though, who cannot even fathom the idea that a critque of the democrats could be motivated by anything other than some conspiritorial foreign-agent red-scaring. — StreetlightX

I addressed that too, but apparently you missed it. Hence my query.

Ignore away. — StreetlightX

Okay. Like I told another member, you will be tossed in with the company you keep. Guilt by association. Especially when you don't put any distance between yourself and Putin or the fascist racist Republicans who's water you carry.

Geez. I like what you're saying but what if activism is just a phony thing that doesn't really accomplish anything? Not saying I believe that but what if? — John McMannis

Then there's nothing we can do but hope. But that's not the case. Plenty is being done and has been done.

Is this in reference to the other response I got from street light? Because he is saying the opposite almost. What if we just take away the word activism and just say fighting and organizing and stuff, like you're saying. I think you both agree with that but cal it different things. — John McMannis

We can use any word we like, it makes no difference. What matters is educating, organizing with others, and acting collectively. Look at the civil rights movement or the environmental movement or the anti-war movement. Look at women's rights and gay rights. Whether we call this "activism" or not is irrelevant. I see no problem with the word myself.

This does make sense to me. In other words just vote against Trump or people like him but don't make a big deal about it and don't pretend that joe biden is so great? That's kind of where I am at in how I feel about them but yet pretty pessimistic about anything big changing in my life. — John McMannis

Right -- we should all prevent the worst from happening, at minimum. It takes almost no time. Then we should get back to the real work. I understand the pessimism, but that shouldn't be a preventative for fighting. Not fighting guarantees the worst.

I'll definitely take this advice. Any suggestions on how best to get involved locally or how to break into the conversation with people about this stuff? It's not so easy for me. — John McMannis

I can give you suggestions from my own life if that's helpful. Just send me a message if you're interested.

I have a time horizon of 10-20 years, in which we need to transform both the energy sector and agriculture if we want to survive. We don’t have 100 years to end neo-feudalism. If you’re not factoring that in you’re simply not serious.

True, having democrats or progressives in office may accomplish nothing or even make things worse. If that’s the case, we’re toast. So it’s hopeless. — Xtrix

Your lack of imagination is not an indictment on hope. — StreetlightX

On climate change, Republicans say it's a hoax, Democrats say it's a problem. The Biden administration has appointed a Native American as secretary of interior, for example -- a very good move. They've re-established National monuments and regulations weakened under Trump, and put a moratorium on drilling on public lands. None of this goes far enough, but compare to the Trump administration when Scott Pruitt, an oil lobbyist, was the head of the EPA and Ryan Zinke, a former board member of a pipeline company, was head of the Interior.

If you are listening to climate scientists, and truly see no difference between the administrations, you're simply not serious. Any public pressure was completely useless in the Trump administration -- they went the opposite way. If you want to pretend that it's not worthwhile to vote against climate deniers when scientists say we have 10-20 years to turn things around, that's your problem. And indeed a lack of not just imagination, but logic.

The idea that the U.S. has some real and substantial problems, and that the two parties are indistinguishable from a certain perspective, has merit. But if those problems and the lack of distinction are simply tools being used to further undermine and divide, without the offer of a viable, constructive criticism, then it’s easier to flush him down the toilet. — James Riley

The two parties are not indistinguishable. They're bought off and pressured by different interests and constituents. It's true almost all are corporatists, but there are different industries at play. The fossil fuel companies pour far more money into the Republican party, and their media networks, think tanks, lobbying groups, and presence in business and law schools are well documented. The Koch brothers have been especially influential.

They're simply the opposite direction of most of where we want to be in the United States. The Democrats, while also neoliberal capitalists, have a different set of strategies. They are owned by a different segment of the corporate world -- namely, the financial industry (Wall Street). These people are starting to get nervous about the effects of climate change, and so the Democrats are allowed to pay lip service to it. They propose things like the Green New Deal, which is a good start; they're able to run progressive candidates and are having success with them. The party has been pushed left, beyond a doubt. They will continue to be pushed left. Whether it's done in time is the question. But in the meantime, we keep not only pushing but creating the conditions for change at a grassroots level (which is why Bernie was able to take off).

It's easy to sit back and say it's all hopeless, that nothing will change, and that there aren't any solutions. Much harder to propose alternatives -- which is why you'll hear absolutely none from Street or any other idealist. No specificity, no details -- because those are too hard. Much easier to keep it general, because this way you don't have to look into things.

But the entire issue is trivial: vote against the worst party and the worst candidates, and move on with the hard work of organizing, educating, supporting more progressive candidates, engaging in local and state politics and economics, etc. All else is cynical, superficial, adolescent nonsense that comes from reading too many books and sitting on your ass too long.

Yeah, if I'm going to roll with anyone I'll roll with you and not Street. I smell something bad on that side of the street.

Unfortunately I'm as bad a role model and as immature as he is in terms of communication, so I don't claim any wisdom in that respect. The points are make should be so trivial it's astonishing they even have to be written. But that's the harm of over-thinking things, I suppose.

Unfortunately I'm as bad a role model and as immature as he is in terms of communication — Xtrix

We all are, now that politics has been placed over facts, science and the rule of law. So I pick the side that does not pretend to be neutral while they only rip down only one side. I figure them as a shill for the side they ignore. That, in my opinion, is dishonorable, dishonest and cowardly.

I figure them as a shill for the side they ignore. — James Riley

In fairness, I don't think he's a shill for the Republicans. He'll claim I'm a shill for the Democrats. What doesn't seem to be understood is that one can see the corruption and the corporate stranglehold on the two-party system in the US, and yet still recognize minor differences which, in a superpower, are relevant. I mention climate change as one example, but there are plenty of others. It's also within the Democratic party that we find a Bernie Sanders or an AOC, which is encouraging.

He'll claim I'm a shill for the Democrats. — Xtrix

Yeah, but I don't seem him going after the Republicans, while you don't give the Democrats a pass. That was my original question: has he ever given them equal time with what he would have a reader believe is his objective, two-edged sword? I haven't seen it. But then again, I don't pay him too much attention. In fact, I've given him too much oxygen already. On to something else . . .

Yeah, but I don't seem him going after the Republicans — James Riley

The question is:. can you accept that American democracy has been subverted to create a super wealthy class? Can you accept that the US military has been used to cement this same anti-egalitarian approach throughout the world?

Did you even know that when you drink cheap coffee, you're imbibing the fruits of hard nosed exploitation connected to the same principles?

When I say "accept", I mean can you engage the subverted system in front of you and try to work within it to help those who can be helped? And put off the revolution until tomorrow?

If so, then support Biden and continue on.

The question is:. can you accept that American democracy has been subverted to create a super wealthy class? Can you accept that the US military has been used to cement this same anti-egalitarian approach throughout the world?

Did you even know that when you drink cheap coffee, you're imbibing the fruits of hard nosed exploitation connected to the same principles? — frank

If you've paid any attention to what I've said about plutocracy, etc. then you know the answers to those questions. On the other hand, I don't suspect you've hung on all my pearls of wisdom like you should have. There are 2.3k of them to date. That would be a big ask :lol:

When I say "accept", I mean can you engage the subverted system in front of you and try to work within it to help those who can be helped? — frank

I can, but I'm cautious about working at cross-purposes to my goal. Also, my "those who can be helped" are usually not human, though humans benefit as a result. Sometimes against their will.

And put off the revolution until tomorrow? — frank

I can, but I'm old. I won't resist if I see the young and energetic start their work.

If so, then support Biden and continue on. — frank

Thanks for the permission. :wink:

I don't think you understood anything I said. :up:

I don't think you understood anything I said. :up: — frank

Likewise, I'm sure. :up:

Likewise, I'm sure. :up: — James Riley

Could be. I just told you that it doesn't really matter much who you vote for, not wrt fundamentals.

If you really understood that, then why are you up in arms about Republicans? Like they're the problem?

I'm not being hyperbolic. I understand that there's a lot of that in social media, so truth isn't a priority in most of what people say. Just to help clarify. I'm speaking as straight as I can.

On climate change, Republicans say it's a hoax, Democrats say it's a problem. The Biden administration has appointed a Native American as secretary of interior, for example -- a very good move. They've re-established National monuments and regulations weakened under Trump, and put a moratorium on drilling on public lands. None of this goes far enough, but compare to the Trump administration when Scott Pruitt, an oil lobbyist, was the head of the EPA and Ryan Zinke, a former board member of a pipeline company, was head of the Interior. — Xtrix

Ooohh wooooow a native American wooooow yeah gosh pack it up boys, the planet is fixed job done. Take your identity politics and shove it so far up your - ok, moratorium hey?

The new president quickly announced a moratorium on the sale of drilling leases while the Interior Department conducted a review of the federal oil and gas program. But in the meantime, Biden’s Interior Department has been approving drilling permits for previously sold leases at a fast clip. It approved more than 2,100 permits in his first six months, a pace that surpasses monthly approvals during most of Trump’s presidency, according to the AP. 

https://grist-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/grist.org/regulation/whats-the-status-of-bidens-promise-to-phase-out-drilling-on-public-lands/amp

CEPP is dead - anyone with half a brain could see that coming - , and what looks to make it through is tax cuts for the rich and "green subsidies" - read: wealth tranfer - for corporations. Your shitty fucking democrat party is a shitty fucking party and supporting them will kill this planet but you get to feel good about the fact that you think you've "done something" when what you "done" is help shore up legitimacy for a bunch of fucking rats determined to end life on this planet for the profits of their masters and handlers. Oh and let's not forget handing your shitty fucking country back to the Republicans on a silver platter, but only after completely murdering any left energy in its cot - i.e. it's most important function in American political life.

You cannot pretend to care about this planet while supporting democrats. These things are mutually exclusive.

I just told you that it doesn't really matter much who you vote for, not wrt fundamentals. — frank

That's the issue, though, isn't it? What are the fundamentals? I didn't vote for Hillary because she wouldn't release her Goldman Sachs transcripts, and she struck me as a Mitch McConnel: Conniving. But doesn't mean there is no daylight between them on other issues.

If you really understood that, then why are you up in arms about Republicans? Like they're the problem? — frank

Because they are the problem. Them and Manchin and Sinema. But to get down into the weeds on this (and I've said this many times before, though it's understandable you don't stalk me and read all I write), the Republicans no longer exist (in my mind). When they threw the last true conservative Republican under the bus (Liz Cheney), they forever bound themselves, irrevocably, to Trump (and if she stays in the party, so will she). And Trump places no daylight between himself and fascist white nationalist racists. Long story short, Republicans are now Trumpsters and I find Trump to be an un-American traitor to our fundamental principles outlined in our organic documents, as well as being the preeminent liar, coward and dishonorable, self-absorbed huckster.

I'm not being hyperbolic. — frank

Neither am I.

I understand that there's a lot of that in social media, so truth isn't a priority in most of what people say. Just to help clarify. I'm speaking as straight as I can. — frank

Same here. :up:

Here's an idea I was tossing around in my brain pan while I was out working today: The Republican (Trump) Party is akin to a man in a patriarchal society. The Democrat Party is akin to a woman in a patriarchal society. Now, there honestly is nothing inherently wrong with that, in and of itself. It can be a beautiful thing. But when we acknowledge that every individual (man and woman) is different, then we can ask ourselves: In the current iteration of the relationship, what kind of man and what kind of woman are we looking at? I see an abusive POS in a wife-beater tee shirt, beer in hand, telling the bitch to make him a sandwich. I also see a wife who doesn't like it but doesn't know what to do. Maybe if she just tries to understand him, make him a sandwich, be a good wife . . . Maybe she can change him. After all, she's simply trying to take care of the family. But apparently he knows better.

And she might look for a better man. But the best that men could come up with is Trump. The rest are his lieutenants.

I have my ideas of what she should do. But she won't.

Your shitty fucking democrat party is a shitty fucking party and supporting them will kill this planet — StreetlightX

They’re not doing nearly enough, and for obvious and predictable reasons. The alternative is the Trump administration and Republicans— which is an absolute guarantee of the worst happening. It’s not the same. Given that there are only two parties, there’s a choice: decide who is worse, given your objectives, and vote against the worst. The Republicans are worse. That’s not an endorsement of Democrats. It’s also not an endorsement of the two party system.

This is only a hard choice for those who do nothing, and have bought into the establishment propaganda about the importance of voting — as if that’s the only power we have. In that case— sure, don’t vote. Or vote third party. Or write in a candidate. That’ll teach them!