196 Stands with Palestine, but those of you in the US should still vote in the general election.
I've been seeing a lot of anti-voting sentiment going around. Can't believe I have to say this, but you need to vote. Not only is there more to the election than just the president. (State policy, Senate, house), but not voting is not an act of protest. C'mon guys
You are viewing a single comment
Whats the point? To chose between disney fascist and a consevative fascist?
BoTh SiDes ArE ThE SaMe
At what point did they say that? Of course the Republicans are miles worse than the Democrats, but why should people sit there and be like "oh, let me just vote for genocide lite when the other party is genocide standard"
Edit: slight edit since Kbin notifs are weird.
People should not actively vote FOR increasing genocide, which supporting Trump does. Not only there but bringing it here against US Arabs and LGBTQ people. And also opens up the VERY real possibility of this country turning into a dictatorship in which there won't be more votes.
Tell that to women and trans people. If Trump wasn't elected we'd still have roe v Wade and federal judges that would strike down a lot of the anti trans laws being put out, plus those states wouldn't have been empowered to do so in the first place.
Lol. As if trans people in red states will be any better off with Biden as president again. Or trans people in blue states any worse under Trump. The feds aren't doing anything about all the states that are doing the most heinous shit to trans people already.
Don't threaten me with my sister's death to coerce me to support the genocidal regime currently in power.
They don't keep us safe. We keep us safe.
The Republican Party is not the party of small government. They are a fascist death cult and they will bring their anti-trans bills from red states to the federal government. Trans people will be erased from public life. Trans people will be discriminated in the work force and undoubtedly find it difficult to pay rent as a result. Trans people are going to end up homeless on the streets if Republicans win in 2024.
The Supreme Court is hearing a case about homeless encampments. Homeless encampments may soon lose the current legal protection they have under the Eight Amendment. The current logic being that chasing away people who have no where left to go is cruel and unusual punishment.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/
Even blue states like Oregon and California asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/09/opinion/the-supreme-court-could-soon-outlaw-homeless-camps/
It is not guaranteed that blue states will be safe havens for anyone. Here is an official statement from Governor Gavin Newsom.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/01/12/governor-newsom-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-agreeing-to-hear-case-on-homelessness/
If Trump wins in 2024, he wants to make homelessness illegal. Homeless people are going to end up in death camps.
A trans homeless person is as least as likely to end up in a death camp as a cis homeless person. And trans people have a good chance of being homeless if they can't get a job because Republicans allow corporations to discriminate against them in the work place. Trans people will be worse off no matter where they are in America.
If the Democrats are also pushing to make being homeless illegal why is that an incentive to vote for them? I guess I don't get your point. You think Biden doesn't feel the same way about Martin v Boise as Newsom?
My point is Democrats want to overturn the status quo. The blue states assume they are going to get to decide what happens to homeless people next, presumably for the better. Unfortunately for them, a second Trump term would undoubtedly render homelessness illegal at the federal level. Best-laid plans gone awry thanks to Trump.
If the Republicans win in 2024 they will have control of all three branches of the federal government. They will be able reshape America how they see fit, and states rights are not going to stop them. States rights were only ever a justification from Republicans to turn their states into authoritarian christofascist workshops. Now they going to take what they've learned and practiced to the federal level and won't care about state rights whatsoever.
The blue states are pushing to be allowed to put homeless people in jail again. Martin v. Boise required you to have enough shelter beds/housing available before you could force homeless people to leave the street. The blue states are joining the SCOTUS case because they will not build shelters. If that doesn't indicate that they have no intention of doing better, idk what does.
They don't need the other two branches of government to do this. They've already got the only one that matters and are doing it now even with a Democrat in the Oval Office.
Again, here is Governor Gavin Newsom's official statement. He seems intent on providing services to homeless people. Presumably that would include shelter.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/01/12/governor-newsom-statement-on-u-s-supreme-court-agreeing-to-hear-case-on-homelessness/
It's fair to not trust what someone says. At least with Democrats when they outwardly claim to have homeless people's interests at heart, since they are neoliberals as opposed to fascists I am inclined to believe them. However, I disagree with the need to remove homeless camps in order to provide services to people. If the services are good and this is effectively communicated to people, I think most people in need of those services will take them voluntarily.
This is opposed to the fascists in the Republican party who want to put homeless people in what will no doubt turn out to be death camps.
If Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level, they will need Congress to pass legislation and the presidency to sign the bill into law. All the Supreme Court can do is remove homeless encampments' Eighth Amendment protection based on the current question they are trying to answer. They could also assign whether they think the federal or state governments have the authority to write legislation to address homeless encampments. As they did recently with Trump v. Anderson, where they decided not only that states don't have authority to take Trump off the ballot but only Congress does. However the Supreme Court cannot write or sign into law any such legislation themselves.
Not that I assume anyone needs this, but it's catchy and I'll take any excuse to watch it, it's the "I'm just a bill."
I was just going to post this just for fun, but they actually raise a good point. Even with only Trump in office, without a Republican controlled congress, he can do a lot of damage with just executive orders. edit: added clarification to Trump v. Anderson
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Not that I assume anyone needs this, but it's catchy and I'll take any excuse to watch it, it's the "I'm just a bill."
I was just going to post this just for fun, but they actually raise a good point.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Even in Newsom's own statement he still says they're attempting to clear encampments. The reason they cannot clear encampments is because, by Boise, they do not have enough shelter. Altering Boise (which is what he wants to do) would enable them to clear encampments even if those people had no place to go. The California government is asking for carte blanche to take homeless people's possessions whenever they want, even if they have nothing to offer them. I don't know in what world that has their best interests at heart. It seems to basically mirror Republican policy.
You're acting as though the Democrats are not willing participants in making homelessness illegal, but then linking to an amicus brief where they're begging the Supreme Court to let them do just that.
And a short aside about your Trump v. Anderson comments. The Supreme Court made their ruling only as strong as it needed to be to accomplish their goals. This is basically a hallmark of the Roberts Court. If they thought there was any threat from the legislature to actually ban Trump from running, the ruling would have been more expansive. The Supreme Court is Lucy holding the football and you're Charlie Brown thinking this time you've got a chance.
No, here is the relevant line from Governor Gavin Newsom.
They plan on giving services to homeless people. This would presumably include shelter.
This Supreme Court decision will most likely remove the Eighth Amendment protection that homeless encampments currently have. While that will remove their current legal standing, by which I mean how they are currently defended in courts, it will not impact the legality of homeless encampments one way or another. Laws will have to be passed and in some cases laws may already be on the books, that will determine the legality of homeless encampments. The Supreme Court cannot write, pass, or sign legislation to make homelessness illegal. As long as Biden is president, homelessness will at least be a state issue as apposed to a federal issue. If Trump becomes president homelessness will be a federal issue.
With the current Republican House of Representatives, there is little chance of Congress barring Trump from office. Under a Democrat controlled Congress they could bar Trump from holding office, but that would of course be too little too late. That is neither here or there though. The point of that example was to demonstrate that the Supreme Court can only determine who has authority in any given case, whether that be the federal government or individual state governments.
To be clear, the difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue of homeless encampments, is that Democrats want their blue states to be able to help homeless people the way they see fit, which I agree is not the best way to do this, while Republicans want to make homelessness illegal at the federal level. If he is elected, Trump is going to decide what happens to homeless people in California, not Gavin Newsom. Trump is a fascist, so when he says "tent cities" on "large parcels of inexpensive land" he means death camps. So even though Democrats are approaching this with supposedly the best interests of homeless people in mind, it's not going to matter because Trump, if elected, will pull the rug out from under them. edit: typos
By "plagued our efforts" he means "we can't clear camps". How do you think he wants to do good things after reading that?
Democrats should have recognized the protections granted by Martin v Boise and not joined in Grants Pass v Johnson in an attempt to get rid of them. The fact that they're still supportive of sending things to SCOTUS shows how truly far to the right they are. Constantly decrying the SC as a newly-biased institution but still submitting briefs to them. They're either expecting this partisan institution to magically hand down liberal decisions, or they want the right wing response.
Which do you think it is?
Don't get me wrong, I think what the Democrats want to do is not great, just better than what Republicans want to do. Democrats think they need to clear camps first and then provide services to homeless people. I think they should provide services, advertise the services and people will leave the camps if the services are good. But regardless, the point is currently trans people are no worse off in blue states under Biden currently, but they will be much worse off under Trump.
There is no denying that the Democrats have been neoliberals since the 90's.
I wouldn't be surprised if some neoliberals among the Democrats have genuinely bought into the states' rights bullshit. They are going to be disappointed if Trump wins. I think most people want the power to do things their way. Gavin Newsom seems too with it to have fallen for states' rights so he probably thinks he's going to do be able to do things his way. He is probably betting on a second Biden term and is going to be disappointed if Trump wins. edit: typos
You can assure me that a Republican triple majority won’t pass a national abortion ban?
Why would they need either the legislature or the presidency?
Because you can’t unilaterally pass federal laws as the minority party?
If you're the majority party on the Supreme Court I think it's quite evident that neither of the other two branches really matter.
What laws have the Supreme Court passed, exactly?
Depends, are you asking in the literal sense or in the functional sense?
In the functional sense, it seems quite obvious.
In the literal sense, none, but that doesn't matter in terms of the fears about the erosion of rights that we're discussing in the first place.
Has the Supreme Court passed a national abortion ban? Do you think it can/will? Do you think a Republican legislature and President can/will?
Isn't the Supreme Court about to pass judgement on whether it's legal to obtain mifepristone by overturning an FDA approval from the bench? Overturning medical determinations based on research is new territory.
If you don't think the best conservative thinkers money can buy are currently examining legal avenues by which they can federally ban abortion through a court decision then I'm not sure you're paying attention. Jerry Falwell's not paying me and also I'm not a lawyer, but until a few years ago, liberals though Roe was safe, too.
I wouldn't put it past them, and you come off as incredibly naive if you do.
No, they are not. Mifepristone will continue to be available regardless of their verdict. It may, however, become less accessible if they decide to uphold the the Fifth Circuit Court’s position and revert to pre-2016 prescription requirements. That is, unless Democrats pass a law guaranteeing access to the medication.
It is not. You can to sue the FDA for a variety of reasons, just like any other government agency.
Of course they are. They are also spending billions of dollars yearly to convince as many would-be Democrats as possible to just roll over, because it’s way easier to execute these goals with control of the legislature and presidency.
Why would that hypothetical law (which won't get passed: see their promise to protect Roe v. Wade) not just get overturned by SCOTUS? They clearly play by their own rules.
If anything, your link to the Ivermectin case thing is further proof of that.
The fact is that a Democratic presidency and legislature can do nothing in the face of a Supreme Court that they still view as wielding discretionary power of them, and Democrats are too weak to play any sort of Constitutional Crisis hardball.
Yes! It has and always will be about voting for the person you dislike the least. You need to grow up if you think otherwise
You need to do some critical thinking. Vote for the person who best aligns with your beliefs, not which of the two big names you hate less.
You need to do some critical thinking. The reason one would dislike one candidate more is because they align less with beliefs.
This is a very burguerfull comment
Vote for an independent candidate. People have this wild notion that voting for a third-party candidate means you're throwing your vote away.
You're not. You're voting for the candidate that best represents your values. People who say otherwise have fallen for the brainrot talking point that's been around since Ross Perot ran in '96.
^ this guy wants trump to win the election.
Ah yes, label me as a Trump sympathizer, cause that definitely helps your cause with the average joe.
Edit: This you calling me a Russian agent?
Helps my cause more than you or anyone else voting 3rd party.
If only Perot had just won those extra 370 electoral college votes.
Hm, almost as though Democrats should be pressured by voters to abolish the electoral college... wonder what will change their stance on that.
Maybe... if the Democrats saw their support weakening as a result of their terrible policies... hmmmm.
Democrat-leaning states are already working towards that.. The idea is that if they have 270 electoral votes worth of states signed up, they will all agree to change their electoral delegates to follow the national popular vote, effectively ending the electoral college. It's not really a democratic push, but it's an idea that would only be popular with the party that aligns with the national majority. They currently have 205 EVs committed.
Huh, thanks for making me aware of this. I'll look into this more. Genuinely appreciate the insight.
Nothing wild about it.
Either
or
If you decide for the latter you'll risk to never really vote again. Read the signs on the wall. It's the "What would I have done if I was a german under Hitler" phase, the USA citizens are in right now. If your prefer the stuff that's going on in Hungary under Orban or worse, go on, vote 3rd party.
Edit:
Germany is in a similar situation in the next federal parliament election although we got more weighty contenders in the parliament than only dems and reps. Our Biden vote equals to 2 parties (labour party and the greens) out of 6. The remaining 4 parties would be a Trump vote (AfD). The outcome of that election would define the politics for unforseeable future and was and is the reason for the mass protests in germany.
Edit 2:
We'd probably have more leeway as the AfD would not straight be elected but mainly the CDU who would choose the chancelor (Either Söder or the german Trump light Friedrich Merz). There would be many more compromises made with AfD (farfarfar right) with a CDU chancelor than under a new labor (SPD) and Greens chancelor. The dream would be if The Greens got a majority. Then Habeck would be chancelor.
How is it wise to vote for a candidate that has no discernible chance of winning the election, and is therefore incapable of actually representing my interests in government?