This is something I think about a lot. The best way to defeat fascism is within the process with democracy – because if we start playing by their rules to stop fascism, we prove them right in a sense. It’s preferable to actually letting fascism happen, but it would severely weaken our democracy.

If voting is not enough, then the next best option would be for Biden to pull his own Jan 6 and refuse to certify the results and call in Seal Team 6. And then after doing so, order his own arrest for violating our laws and norms. The only way to preserve democracy after taking steps outside of democracy is to fall on your own sword.

It’s like an alternate universe within the DC universe – the Joker goes too far and Batman snaps his neck. When he arrives at the police, he carries the Joker’s body and tells them to arrest him. Batman knew it was necessary to kill Joker, but he also knew he had to be held accountable for doing that. Any group which uses violence to end the fascist threat needs to turn themselves in afterwards to preserve peaceful democracy. It would be incredibly unfair to them, but it’s necessary to prevent a new normal of violent anarchy.

This isn’t a bad 4D chess move. Trick Republicans in Congress to heavily limit the power of the president to neuter this decision.

Thanks!

Did it? My understanding is that the draft and footage of their children dying in war is what reshaped the public opinion.

Genuinely asking though, it was before my time.

How does de la Cruz intend to stop arms shipments without any congressional representation to push legislation to do so?

If Congress says money must be spent on sending Israel weapons, then the president has to follow that in some capacity. The president could try to stop shipments, but that would result in a swift court case, and the president would be compelled to continue sending weapons. The executive branch has discretion in how to do so, but it unfortunately does not have the authority to end it.

You need Congress if you’re going to stop all shipments. Alternatively I suppose you could try to have the judiciary in your favor, but that means de la Cruz now needs the Supreme Court on her side.

It’s a complete misconception in American society and politics that the president can do anything. They’re certainly the most powerful single individual, but Congress is still much stronger.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation would be much better served trying to win Congressional races so they can push for bills to end weapon shipments. If they could take a number of strong Republican districts with their message, it would give them a lot more influence.

If voting third-party were purely symbolic, there wouldn’t be this many people on Lemmy trying to persuade us to not do it

This is a logical fallacy. If lighting myself on fire as protest were purely symbolic, then why are all of my friends persuading me to not do it?

Sometimes people trying to convince/persuade you against something isn’t because you actually have a point – but because your ideas will lead to harm.

Yeah the Nazis would’ve never come to power if everyone just abstained from voting instead of coalescing under one lesser evil /s

What else wouldn’t you do to stop a genocide?

“Your lack of support for Democrats may end up empowering people who will throw me in jail just for who I am”

“Stop being lazy and go improve a better party”

You’re entitled to your opinion dude, but you were a major dick here.

Trans people are not a monolith. There’s other trans people in this thread begging us to vote for Biden for their safety. Your feelings about being a rhetorical token are not invalid, but recognize that other people in your vulnerable group are legitimately crying out for help.

Either way, I’m glad I’m not one of your loved ones. Your own safety is one thing. Their safety is another.

I’m not going to support a genocide to stop anything!

Ironically, not even to stop a genocide. You’d rather two genocides happen than try to at least prevent one.

If the trolley is going to run over people regardless, and you have the option afterwards to prevent it from running over more people, the moral option is not abstaining.

I’m afraid all of us don’t have that much free time. But hey, if you can get them to stop being anti science and actually become a serious party, I’ll consider them.

Just don’t expect me to accept the Green Party’s many imperfections. If you don’t accept the Democrat’s imperfections, then you should perfectly understand.

You get it! We can’t fuck over vulnerable people. We can’t abandon minorities and LGBT people. Even if we let things get worse to the point of a societal collapse, a lot of people will die because of it – and societal collapse has not historically led to better societies down the road.

Lmao the green party isn’t going to do jack shit. They’re completely unserious about politics. They aren’t even trying to build up an infrastructure in all 50 states that lets them get suffused into local and state politics. They aren’t even aiming for Congressional seats, which would be necessary for an actual Green president to get anything done.

They’re just anti science grifters who think wifi causes cancer, entertain vaccine skepticism, and demonize nuclear energy – the latter of which could be a major asset to stopping global warming. Newer designs are even able to consume nuclear waste, meaning an anti nuclear position results in more waste than we would otherwise.

Biden isn’t going to say “yeah I’m thinking of dropping out”, nor will his campaign, even if they’re strongly considering it. It he does decide to step aside, it will be a sudden announcement with no forewarning.

I agree with your premise though. It isn’t impossible. We just need to collect data and do polling for like a week to understand how much the debate hurt Biden, and if there’s any good alternative options who have a better shot.

I think debates and townhalls are Biden’s best bet right now. He needs to show that it was just a bad night for him.

And if it wasn’t just a bad night, it’ll spur action to find a viable replacement.

It happens! The important part is review and learning from the mistakes.

Oh definitely. I just think their primary influence was on the size of the margin, not the actual outcome of the election. And it still benefits them, since they can say it was a 17% margin instead of like 3-5%.

It’s a 17% difference now. I’m honestly skeptical that AIPAC money is the big cause here. It seems like he had a lot of other issues that contributed to his loss. I was reading earlier that he didn’t really communicate or interface with his constituents much, while Latimer was a much bigger community presence.

This is a trend I’ve noticed actually. A lot of people who do take morally correct positions like to let their positions speak for themselves and not do as much communication or outside engagement. They want to let their moral high ground do the talking. And while their positions are laudable, their core job is to represent their constituents. If they ignore that, a loss isn’t surprising.

We all make mistakes. I once forgot to include gravity in a pressure drop calculation for a 100 ft vertical pipe as part of a steam drum system. I had to send an awkward email revising the design pressure I previously communicated out.

But hey, if we were perfect, we wouldn’t need peer review.

I have a little bit of experience with limit switches, but that’s really interesting. It certainly seems like an unusual system. I’m a lot more familiar with safety relays.