darthelmet

Yeah I've yet to get this with Ublock. It warms my heart to know that the professional coders at a multi-billion dollar company can't outfox some open source devs who are just really determined to not have to look at ads. lol

The point isn't to cede ground and compromise with them. The point is to try to show them that they've been duped about who their enemies are. It might still take some time to deprogram them, but if we could at least get them to put that all on hold and focus on the class issue, maybe we can actually get somewhere instead of spinning in circles.

I have less hope for two reasons:

1. These are still capitalist countries and thus the incentive for fascism still remains even if it gets delayed a bit.

2. The US is the largest, most dangerous military superpower the world has ever seen and it has shown time and time again that it’s willing to use that might to bully other nations into economic submission. No country is really safe if it decides to start going after them. The US hasn’t always won these wars, but even when it fails like in Vietnam or Korea, it does enough damage on the way out to cause massive destruction and suffering which has long lasting consequences. I seriously doubt the rest of the world is just gonna get to sit this one out and watch America self destruct.

Trump, may I remind you, installed a number of those judges.

Right, after a lot of opportunities by Democrats to do things to stop him. The Republicans were willing to fight dirty and the Democrats kind of just rolled over and let it happen. That's not even considering the world where they didn't choose to run 2 deeply unpopular presidents on nothing platforms in multiple critical elections.

Those things have nothing to do with the subject at hand however. Let's keep it in between the lines.

Is the subject at hand not "Why have we gotten into this situation?" The comic certainly seems to be about that in the most reductive way possible. All of this is relevant in trying to explain how we both have the president we have and why he's able to do the bad things that are hurting people.

So you believe they should be allowed to install a sock puppet? I believe that was what we were talking about about, was it not?

I just don't think that a country that hasn't be relevant in 30 years can have more influence over our politics than the richest people in the world regularly pouring their money into the system. Trying to pin our problems on some external enemy is just missing the point. The Republicans don't need foreign encouragement to strip the country for parts and sell it to the rich.

Sorry I figured someone familiar with our system could interpret that as checks and balances. Something trump is currently trying to break. In what language should I provide your native translation?

You wrote a sentence that didn't have the information you were talking about in a comment that didn't talk about what you say the "it" was referring to in a thread with several points of discussion. No reasonable person could just divine what you meant there. It's just not worth having this conversation if you're going to be this aggressive about pointless stuff.

It's not about this being the same. It's about what has contributed to allow this moment. Regular failures of institutions and vast wealth inequality that has been left undressed by the political system has made for a lot of angry people. Concentration of ownership in media has guided that frustration away from its true causes for the benefit of the rich and powerful. The electoral system is set up to favor conservative results and to squarely shut out left leaning candidates. The various expansions of presidential power and the tools needed to exercise that power has made it easier for someone like Trump to get away with things he theoretically shouldn't. The courts being slowly corrupted. Etc.

What Russia is doing is besides the point. The US has plenty of it's own oligarchs to mess with our elections already and we're definitely messing around in other countries. If they weren't touching anything, do you think we'd suddenly get some great elections that represent the people?

however; it is a feature of our system that has allowed us to retain some semblance of humanity and good will - despite the rot.

What is a feature of our system? You didn't specify. As to us maintaining our humanity: We do terrible things regularly, but most people are so disconnected from those actions that they can't really conceptualize the horror of it enough to care and do something about it. There's always some excuse that helps them rationalize it. I don't think most people WANT all the bad stuff. But in the absence of better education and media, it's really easy to trick people into thinking all of this is actually good or at least not bad enough to do something about it.

Legally the president doesn't have the power to unilaterally go to war, but that hasn't stopped them from doing it for the last 70+ years.

Basically ever modern president has grabbed more power for the executive branch without being properly checked by congress or the courts. Combine that with an ever expanding military and surveillance apparatus and it turns out you can do some pretty bad stuff, regardless of the legality.

As for the rest of it, idk man. Clearly you have your rosy view of history where the US was a super great place before the scary Russians came in to corrupt democracy. All I can say is you have more reading to do.

Oh I must have been confused. I forgot that history doesn't exist. Everything started with whatever was last on TV. Donald Trump is just randomly the president for no reason. There must not be any reason he has the power to do the things he's doing. Nope. It's a mystery. Carry on.

I mean, over half a century of neolibs gutting the small semblance of social democracy we had did this. And Biden was certainly one of those people. It'd just be more accurate to say Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, Regan...

Page 3:

“Oh no. It’s coming for me literally as I’m writing thi… aaahhhggggggg!!!!!”

We’ve had the same microwave in my house my entire life. That might have something to do with it.

What's missing from your analysis is the material backing of the parties. The Democrats and Republicans, with the backing of their corporate donors, both represent the interests of the capitalist class. They have their differences in some areas, but neither is interested in disrupting the fundamental relationship between classes and the means of production, which is what grants capitalists their power. So winning or losing elections is less important to them than winning while compromising on that core class interest.

One could choose to reverse your reasoning to say that the Republicans are free to become more and more progressive without being punished

Two things: Why would they? If they want to serve capitalists and they can get away with doing so, they're gonna do it. Second, in a superficial rhetorical way, they have made appeals to progressives. They use some of the language of economic populism talking about elites controlling you, or the economy giving you a hard time, corporate censorship of media, failures of institutions, and the way we spend money on awful foreign adventurism instead of on helping people at home.

Of course this is all for show and for the things they don't just straight up lie about, they subtly twist the messaging to play to the same feelings while turning the attention to things that aren't the problem. Failings of institutions becomes anti-intellectualism. Economic worries get directed to competition with immigrants and foreigners instead of the capitalists exploiting all of them. Corporate censorship gets turned away from the influence corporations have over our communications to just being about crazy woke people who "don't understand how things work" and can't handle people "telling it like it is." Isolationist isn't about being anti-war or anti-multinational corporations, it's about how wars don't benefit Americans enough and how outside influences from scary foreigners is corrupting the country.

Post Clinton and Obama, the Democrats became the party of "everything is fine except for those dumb dumb bigots." And after Bush, the Republicans pivoted to the counter-narrative of that while still maintaining their priority towards the interests of the capitalist class. So neither party is really addressing your concerns, but one seems to be at least acknowledging the problems you have and telling you you're a super special person and the other party seems to be ignoring your pain and kicking you while you're down.

And of course with Republicans in power, I'd expect these roles to flip again. Once Trump does enough of his bullshit he's gonna say everything is great except for those whinny wokes and the Democrats are playing opposition to that, even against policies they supported while in power like deportation, but only go so far as saying that things were better before Trump ruined everything. If we could just go back to before that everything would be fine. Even more specifically, post Trump there has been an effort to pin things all on specific people rather than any structural critique or even going to far as to broaden it to the party as a whole. "There are good, honest Republicans I might disagree with, but respect, but Trump is pure evil and everything bad that's happening is specifically because of him" or some other rotating cast of figureheads like Musk, Desantis, etc. even though all of these policies are things Republicans have been working towards for decades, sometimes with the help of Democrats.

So no, I don't think the stances of the political parties ever really ebbs left based on who wins elections. We had 8 years of "Hope and Change" Obama and the party completely balked at Bernie for actually wanting to follow through on the empty rhetoric of Obama.

The way I look at it, it's not about spite, it's about not contributing to the problem. If this was a choice made entirely in a vacuum where the choices were dropped from the sky with no history and there were no future elections, and you could absolutely only choose between them and nothing else, then fine, choose the dems since I guess they will technically be "less bad."

The problem is the choice isn't made in a vacuum. There's a reason we have the choices that are presented to us in elections because this is a repeated game where past results affect later games. We keep getting worse and worse options from either party because they know people don't have a real choice. As long as the dems are anywhere before the line, even if they're shockingly close, then people will have to pick them. So they move right up to that line because they won't be punished for it. In turn, Republicans have the space to move further right now that the overton window has shifted.

The DNC feels free to rig primaries, which are supposedly where we're allowed to have input without risking a Republican winning, because they know that the outcome won't change people's votes, or even if it does, they don't seem to care THAT much about winning as long as actual leftists lose.

Repeat until we have Democrats who are anti-immigration, pro-war, pro-police, pro-surveillance, and pro-corporate and Republicans who have just taken their mask off. And this even trickles down to the base somewhat. How the hell does California vote to keep literal slavery around and still conceive of itself as liberal?

Also, this is less a strategic point and more of a moral one, but I take issue with the idea of the Dems being "better" as a given. Better for who? They're not better for the people they're helping to bomb. Why should their priorities not matter? How can you quantify their suffering against different kinds of suffering for other groups? "But the Republicans will do the same, so it's a wash, you shouldn't consider that." Meaning we've taken their issue off the table. It's no longer in the realm of politics because we've just accepted that it's fated to happen. It shouldn't matter to us.

"But you can apply pressure once they're in office, the Dems will be more receptive." How exactly will you pressure people who you've told you will unconditionally vote for and won't act against outside the system? And are they more receptive? They didn't stop supplying Israel. They never raised the minimum wage or got people healthcare. They never did anything to codify Roe V Wade or to sure up the courts against corruption. Plus once you spent all this political capital putting them in power, how many liberals or even progressives are going to meaningfully push back against them? Libs will go back to thinking everything is fine and a lot of progressives will just think they should try to "hold them accountable." Whatever that means.

Of course, merely not voting isn't sufficient to affect change, but I think putting all this emphasis on voting is doing harm to the effort to get people to get organized in other ways. It distracts them and it makes it seem like your principles don’t really matter. “If you are so adamant about supporting the people working against my interests, can you really be by ally? Do you really care about me?”