What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy 4.0: making the world safe to flee to if the MAGAts win here

Closer every day.

“As Israeli forces again use US weapons to decimate civilian towns and villages, this time in Lebanon, and violations continue in Gaza and the West Bank, Senate Democrats are making clear that there is a new consensus forming in Washington: US arms sales must comply with US and international law, without exception,” John Ramming Chappell, an adviser at the Center for Civilians in Conflict, told Responsible Statecraft.

Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy advisor at Demand Progress, called the vote “historic” adding that “[t]he Overton window is shifting, and Congress is finally starting to catch up with the majority of Americans who don’t think we should keep spending taxpayer dollars to ship more weapons to Israel.”

Only seven Democrats voted against both resolutions: Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).
 
In the general, yes it does.
Yes, we could never have passed the new minimum wage increase without the brave Democrats who voted to raise it in spite of its pathetic poll numbers. Oh, that's right. The Democrats voted against that despite it being overwhelmingly popular, with one Senate Democrat bringing in a cake just in case the Marie Antoinette "Fuck the Poor" vibes were too subtle.

What VBNMW tells the Democrats is that if a Republican says they will murder 100,000 people and the Democrat says they'll only kill 90,000, you'll vote for the Democrat instead of saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't kill anyone." And if you think this is hyperbole, imagine those 90,000 people are Palestinians who lived in Gaza. Of course, even mentioning them would get me thrown out of the Democratic National Convention for being antisemitic.
 
Vote D,
If you hate the D frontrunner, work for a primary candidate,
If you hate all the D candidates, run yourself

The Founders gave us the plumbing. They're not going to hold our dicks.
 
Beyond that, if you want to change things, show the fuck up in the primaries.
You can't be seriously lecturing ME about showing up in the primaries. You're kidding, right?

The Democrats already argued in court that the party doesn't have to abide by actual votes in the primary. And if they somehow lose in the primary, they just run as a third party candidate anyway. And if they still lose they redistrict, pour establishment money into the race and select a "centrist" candidate. And they do that even if it costs the Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives.
 
All of which argues for even greater engagement, until we wrest control of the party apparatus from the schnooks. The Hungarians did it against longer odds.

We each have to pick one of the three* choices:

1. Use the Ds while laying seige to them
2. Buy a gun and position on the roof
3. Do nothing until the fasc kick in our front door


"You have to have a party
When you're in a State like this"
-- Psychedelic Furs


* There is always the fourth choice. The zeroth choice of kicking the table over. But I doubt USCHO is going to birth any revolutionaries.
 
Vote D,
If you hate the D frontrunner, work for a primary candidate,
If you hate all the D candidates, run yourself

The Founders gave us the plumbing. They're not going to hold our dicks.
Tried that. I was the chairman of the local Democratic Party and member of the county and state parties. I was planning a run but then this tumor invaded my brain and ended my political career.
 
All of which argues for even greater engagement, until we wrest control of the party apparatus from the schnooks. The Hungarians did it against longer odds.

We each have to pick one of the three* choices:

1. Use the Ds while laying seige to them
2. Buy a gun and position on the roof
3. Do nothing until the fasc kick in our front door


"You have to have a party
When you're in a State like this"
-- Psychedelic Furs


* There is always the fourth choice. The zeroth choice of kicking the table over. But I doubt USCHO is going to birth any revolutionaries.
hungarians may have had longer odds, but i am still adament that untying health care from employment would help kick start our revolution. If people know they can't get care for their sick kid because if they aren't working, it tends to hamper the ability to participate in a revolution. In nearly every other nation in the world, the people know they'll still have access to services if they attend protests. Here, attending a protest could get your global entry revoked, shot, fired. We have just as many brave people as they do, but lifting the shackles of employment from healthcare would go a long way.
 
Those are fair points.

I'm not going to tell people if they don't engage they deserve what they get. Basic human rights should be guaranteed by the political system, not a reward for aggressive activity. That's a good operational definition of the bare minimum standard of a legitimate polity: your basic human rights are protected without you having to actively assert them against state opposition.

By that standard, the current American government fails.

So that means we enter into Phase 2: not being assured of rights, we have to re-secure them. By definition, if we've passed Phase 1 there are going to be issues with simply going to the polls, for all the reasons ticap laid out above. The regime will protect itself by denying you democratic remedies. The degree to which they do that varies with the amount of control they have over the population. With the Nazis and Soviets and Pinochet and the Shah that control was absolute. We're not there yet, the way Hungary wasn't there yet. We can still have a hybrid approach of (1) broad albeit basic democratic participation combined with (2) educating people against the propaganda of the state media apparatus and (3) commitment to maximizing substantive change wherever our leaderships gains even a smidgen of power from school boards to courts to legislatures.

Cynicism and defeatism are acid that burns away hope and helps the enemy. Morale is important in a battle with real odds. Hope is not a strategy but it is an ingredient for action.
 
Don't romanticize the Hungarian elections too much. The guy is a former Orban disciple and represents the center-right of his country.

It would be like if we elected Mitt Romney or Fucker Carlson.

This is a bad argument. It doesn't matter that he's rightwing.

Content of policy is what you fight over once democracy is safe. The commitment to democratic process was what was at stake in Hungary. Magyar says he is committed to it. Obviously we'll see, but that was the victory. Magyar is probably going to be just as anti-immigration as Orban. He may be nearly as suspicious of Ukraine. But he is not a loud and proud proponent of "illberal democracy" that made him the favorite of Putin and Dump and CPAC. You can be far, far right on policy and still not be a fascist. Authoritarianism tends to be more prevalent on the right as baggage from their submission to Vengeful/Loving Sky Daddy, but it's a different axis on the complex plane and not logically inevitable. Tucker's a racist xenophobic POS but he isn't going to suspend elections.
 
All of which argues for even greater engagement, until we wrest control of the party apparatus from the schnooks. The Hungarians did it against longer odds.
Don't even have to look that far.

The Tea Party did it to the GOP. Then MAGA followed up with a more compete takeover of the entire party.

The Green Party's failure wasn't inherently policy; it was procedure. It should've attempted to become a wing of the DNC rather than an independent party. We have coalition government in this country, the coalitions are just formed within the framework of the two major parties. You want to be a part of government, pick one and use their apparatus where you can.
 
You can't be seriously lecturing ME about showing up in the primaries. You're kidding, right?

The Democrats already argued in court that the party doesn't have to abide by actual votes in the primary. And if they somehow lose in the primary, they just run as a third party candidate anyway. And if they still lose they redistrict, pour establishment money into the race and select a "centrist" candidate. And they do that even if it costs the Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives.
You're going to come in with your usual sanctimonious spiel and get offended when people call you on it? *****, please.
 
You're going to come in with your usual sanctimonious spiel and get offended when people call you on it? *****, please.
No, I'm going to laugh at your unfounded criticism. You couldn't be more wrong and you know it but say it anyway.

iu
 
No, I'm going to laugh at your unfounded criticism. You couldn't be more wrong and you know it but say it anyway.

iu

Your argument is that voting blue no matter who in the general doesn't make a big difference.

Pretty sure we wouldn't be at war with Iran, fighting with the first American Pope, destroying the White House, dealing with aftermath of the DOGE fiasco, or generally worried about our President having dementia if people had voted blue no matter who.

But hey, I'm sure the Arabic community in Michigan has zero regrets for not supporting Harris.
 
Back
Top