- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
We need to be ready to march in the streets if SCOTUS tries to pull some fuckery. They’re not even supposed to be in the loop on elections. That’s the newly elected Congress’ job.
We need to be ready to march in the streets if entities like local precinct offices or the Georgia Election Board try to pull some fuckery too, long before the fuckery even makes it to the MAGA SCOTUS.
If you’re not marching with guillotines at the ready, there is no point in marching at all.
Hate to break it to ya, but marching in the streets won’t solve this. More drastic measures would have to take place, and frankly I don’t see that happening.
If SC tries to hand the country over to a lying fascist insurrectionist there will be drastic measures. If they don’t respect the rule of law then that’s the breaking point where we stop respecting their laws. Biden has insane immunity coverage courtesy of the SC so we can start with some “official acts” of removal and see how all this plays out.
LARP. Sounds amazing, really. But they stopped respecting the law long ago and nobody has done or will do jack shit about it.
I like to think so, but I honestly think people would maybe protest a bit but then everyone would go back to work and shrug their shoulders. I’d love to be wrong though.
On the contrary a massive number of people on the streets is the only way we’ve seen effective change in the past couple decades. Violence has led to protracted conflicts with a low rate of success.
deleted by creator
Or in 2000 when 750K joined the Million Moms March and stopped gun violence. Or in 2004 when 1.2 million marched to protect abortion rights and 2017 when 500K joined the Pussyhat Protests and prevented Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Or in 2014 when 300K joined the People’s Climate Match and stopped climate change.
Yep, walking around with signs has truly been the only way “effective change” has happened in “the last two decades.”
You need to start adding a zero to get numbers that change things. The abortion rights marches have absolutely changed stuff. The Republicans refuse to admit they ever had anything to do with getting rid of abortion and abortion rights have won in all 7 states that already voted on it. Now they’re on the ballot in 11 states for November.
When you get enough people, and it’s not some nebulous idea like gun violence, stuff actually happens.
Yeah, all we need is an organized, non-violent ten-million person march, then we can change things! 🙄
Yeah, just miss that order of magnitude in the middle there.
deleted by creator
No
Those weren’t enough people and you can’t protest an idea the way occupy protested greed. It just didn’t work. When you look at the pictures of places that have done this they have completely filled the streets, to the point there is no controlling the crowd.
Filling a park or a “free speech zone” isn’t going to do it.
Examples, please
Ukraine is probably the most recent example. Russia invaded them but before that they threw their president out purely with people in the street.
In Egypt they caused a change of governance that wasn’t a total improvement but was an improvement.
In Tunisia and Algeria they got favorable changes in government.
Now do the US
1964 civil rights act
Suffragette movement
Prohibition
The original crowd in Boston that started our country
Yeah, little known fact that the dudes in Boston accomplished so much through non violence, that the American revolution was actually just for the sport of it. Kinda like pro wrestling.
Yanukovych fled because people started raiding armories and shooting at Berkut. In Egypt the army sided with the protestors. Don’t know Tunisia and Algeria off the dome but I doubt there was no violence or threat of imminent violence
Of course there was some violence. You think the cops are going to be peaceful? Ha!
Once you have enough people that is the threat.
That’s what so many people in this thread are missing. Without a visible critical mass of people showing support they’re going to be dismissed as a small group of armed dissidents and everyone will stay home and cheer when we kill the terrorists.
With that critical mass of support the “government” would be forced to either abdicate or deploy force in the most immoral manner possible. Against an overwhelming show of support. Which swings it all the other way. This is why dictators shut down the Internet during protests.
So they may still get what is clearly their wish. But for the good of the country it needs to be done the right way if Trump steals the election.
They don’t have any, they just know you’re supposed to say “take to the streets” because they think they’re a 1960s radical rehearsing boomer protest tactics. As though things might not have changed in the last 60 years.
Counter-protest tactics have continuously adapted and evolved – from technology to legislation to media manipulation. Protest tactics have not kept pace, evidenced by the fact that this person thinks street protests have created effective change in the last 20 years.
Buddy, I just fucking woke up. This isn’t a voice conversation.
Well, there’s this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan#Overview
If you follow the thread here, this is in a US context (the “we” referenced by the commenter), and it’s about “non-violent” protests, given the commenter said violent protests have been “protracted” with “low rates of success.” Euromaidan activists seized the government quarter by force and stormed Yanukovych’s mansion.
While I take your point, this isn’t a particularly illustrative example in this context.
No this is exactly what it looks like. They filled the streets and they didn’t go into his mansion until he fled after the Army turned on him for using lethal force against the crowd.
Just like the water hoses and dogs picture was very resonant in the US. The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.
Maybe we watched the news and saw it happen. Egads!
Ready for more than marching.
Remember, this is actually a question of what to do about a coup d’etat. Undercutting basic democracy is not a question of law, but a question of who will use force how much force to address it.
The constitution isn’t to protect you from the government. It is to protect the government from you. If someone proclaims themselves the government, but are refusing the protections that comes with adherence to the Constitution, you are under no obligation to tolerate their will and whim.
If they pull another Brooks Brother or similar, then we fight.
Sure, yeah, that’ll be when we finally “fight.” Totally. We’re right behind you.
Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mother Jones:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/10/supreme-court-2024-election-donald-trump/
If it comes to the supreme court, its over. Harris needs a minimum of a two state win over Trump. That means she needs to pick up one or both AZ and NC, and PA. GA is out because its basically automatic recount fuckery.
There is another thread about this elsewhere, but way the table is set, it looks like Harris is on track to either a) lose outright, or b) lose at the SC.
Which is why we can’t give in to defeatism and it’s dangerous to frame discussion with the notion that Harris is “on track to […] lose.” It’s not over until the election is over.
Nothing is guaranteed in this election. Talk of Harris as though she’s definitely going to win or definitely going to lose only serves to depress voter turnout because people think their votes aren’t necessary.
Vote like your rights depend on it; encourage everyone you know to do the same.
is why we can’t give in to defeatism
No, we can’t engage in self delusion.
and it’s dangerous to frame discussion with the notion that Harris is “on track to […] lose.”
No, its dangerous to stand in denial of the evidence. Hopes not going to get you there. The evidence we have right now suggest we might not even have to worry about SC fuckery.
The ONLY thing that can be done is to stop with this trite, delusional thinking, and to stop advocating for this candidate blindly. That kind of toxic blindness is why the candidate is suffering. Accepting less from your candidate means they don’t do as well on election day. We need to demand better from her because if she doesn’t do better, she wont win.
This comment is incoherent.
Something you dont agree with <> Something incoherent
Your comment just makes no sense. I can’t even say I disagree with you because you have no point — there’s no propositional content with which anyone can agree or disagree.
So your claim is that the set of claims I made contain no claims.
oh ok, yeah .sure.
Removed by mod
There are stories written about people that fight for what’s right and win.
There are also stories about people that fight for what’s right and lose.
Nobody ever writes anything about those that give up, regardless of the outcome. Gone and forgotten… as they should be because they contributed nothing.
I’d rather be either of the first two options than the third. It’s a Pascal’s wager kind of thing… defeatism isn’t actually smart, because it makes you the loser in every outcome.
Toxic self delusion isn’t useful.
Self delusion…? Supporting candidates blindly?
Trump has no platform to support. It’s all hate and hypocrisy.
The amount of mental gymnastics you go through must be tiring. Either that or you’re a disingenuous piece of shit.
deleted by creator
She can just certify the vote for herself and Biden can just “official act” any scenario he wishes— per the $upremely Courted’s rulings and fuckery.
In Bush v Gore SCOTUS inserted itself before the constitutional remedy of a congressional ballot could be held. There’s no reason to think they won’t do it again.
I mean, do you think she has the nuts?
It’s either that… or 1933 Hitler stuff again
You don’t get to decide if you have the nuts or not.
Actually, that’s precisely how one decides if they have the nuts or not.
The nuts is a poker term. It means having the high hand, or the best possible hand based on the board.
Indeed, citizen #14047439! Have you enlisted in the ranks of the inevitable ruler-for-life yet to show your True Patriot loyalty? After all, his reign is inevitable and cannot be stopped, and nothing can be done! Will your jackboots be shined and your uniform crisp when he is inevitably and without any possibility of resistance given the eternal throne?
I dont know what any of that drivel means. You sound like an idiot.
I said if you’re this defeatist about the outcome, why not put on a pair of jackboots and join the ranks of the thugs in uniform? After all, if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.
Being clear eyed about reality is the only way we can make a difference. Pretending things are other than they are is how and why things have gotten so out of control. It sucks Harris isn’t doing better. I want her to do better. But she isn’t.
We need to demand better from her on Israel/ Palestine, or we lose this election.
You really think that her going hard on that issue will increase her chances of winning in the swing states? Who would that change the minds of, the “undecided”?
Literally the movement of people under the banner “undecided”.
Harris isn’t getting shit for additional votes with endorsements from Cheney Jr or Cheney Sr. Her momentum has completely stalled and she’s backslid in GA and NC. She needs at least one of those two states by a convincing margin.
The uncommitted movement are registered Democrats. Its not some fringe group, but like, the core of the core Democratic expected voters. And they came in between 10-25% of the vote in states where the movement was focusing. Lets say 20% of those voters aren’t going to vote for a pro-genocide candidate?
So call it 2-5% of registered Democratic voters that Harris is leaving on the table with her position on Israel Gaza. Thats orders of magnitude more votes Harris can get by taking a more morally correct, and a more strategically correct position.
She needs to drive out voters who are torn between Harris and the couch because. No one is crossing party lines in 2024.
Well, I sure hope those undecided democrats feel proud of themselves for sticking to their gumption when they get herded into the gas chambers after the other one wins.
On track based on what? Polling numbers? LOL.
The polling numbers are meaningless right now. Young people don’t answer the phone for pollsters calling from unknown numbers. and people who voted for Trump in the past and have since realized they were conned and won’t turn up to vote again are not going to have a chat with a pollster about who they’ll vote for. So pollsters can’t really assess the vote from the younger generation and everyone they talk to who voted for Trump in the past are going to say they’re voting for him again or they wouldn’t have answer the polls. Also consider women in religious community not wanted to be overheard saying they want to vote for Harris because of reproductive rights.
I don’t fault pollsters, they’re doing the best they can. But people talking about election predictions are just talking out their asses. This election is so far out the norm it’s like asking a scientist to predict the behavior of an animal that was just discovered five minutes ago.
Yeah we’ll just compare the data we’re getting to the last time a convicted felon that’s gone senile that had legal precedent overturned that resulted in people’s rights taken away when a significant portion of the electorate has had their brains scrambled by social media that’s run by a parodies of a James Bond villains. We’ve got so much empirical evidence we can use for a baseline for this, so we’re absolutely certain what will happen!
