• SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Vote! Encourage those around you to vote. Help drive someone to the polls. If you know a young person who’s never voted, get them to vote.

    Don’t care who they vote for, just get them to the ballot box.

    The more people vote, the better things turn out for the majority.

      • Chrisosaur@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A) They need 50 senators willing to entertain that notion. They only have 49. B) If there were one action that I think would be most likely to kick off Civil War 2, it would be packing the court.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Civil War 2 is already happening, you must not be paying attention.

          It’s time to rip off the fucking band-aid and do something about it instead of letting the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and others run around terrorizing the country through wanton violence and death.

          All those “lone wolves” mysteriously all seem to be right-wing nutjobs, too…

          Just because it’s not a “hot” civil war yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One side isn’t fighting back, that’s for sure.

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        With that being said, you’re also correct that voting is NOT enough. Protesting and direct action, mutual aid, and more are all required!

      • LeZero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democrats wouldn’t pack the courts

        That would be uncouth, you know, decorum is after all VERY important

        I also think the Parlementarian said no

      • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are not completely within their power to pack the court, sadly. They would have done so already if this were the case. They need 60 in the senate as well as a majority in the house and the presidency. Then they could.

          • ski11erboi@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunately the dems do not have a true majority in the senate either. It hasn’t been as easy as we hoped to get everyone on the same page.

              • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m still not sure they had that option. It was something mentioned in various campaign platforms, and dems are very upset about current events with it. We might see some movement prior to elections? Not sure.

          • ahnesampo@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The House is not needed to appoint justices, but the size of the Supreme Court is set by federal law, and you need the House to change that law to go beyond nine justices.

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Technically, they don’t need 60. The cloture rule is what necessitates a 3/5ths supermajority to pass bills, but the cloture rule is not itself a law and so Senators can just… change it with a simple-majority vote. This has already happened twice in the recent past: once in 2013 when the Democrat-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating federal circuit judges and once more in 2017 when the Ruplican-led Senate voted to eliminate the cloture rule when nominating supreme court justices.

          FWIW: Senators tend to really hate doing this. They call it the “nuclear option” because they normally like to get a 2/3rds supermajority agreement before changing any standing Senate rules – not to mention that the cloture rule itself is often treated as a total third-rail even among the other important Senate procedures. Combining the nuclear option and killing cloture is a massive political powderkeg waiting to explode… but maybe it should?

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess full throated fascism and authoritarianism isn’t enough to consider a “nuclear option.”

            • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s a shared norm. Part of the deal is an implied promise that the other guys also ignore the big red button. Really, though… that ship had already sailed years ago leaving the cloture rule to hang on by the barest of threads. I’m half-convinced that the current Senate would have already done away with it if only they had a slightly more reliable voting margin.

              IMO: cloture is a dumb rule because we already have a robust system of checks thanks to our bicameral legislature plus presidential veto. The requirement for a 2/3rd supermajority in addition to these for regular everyday business is odious and something that no other large democracy does. I’m anti-gridlock on principle alone, even if I acknowledge the absolute chaos it will probably plunge the Senate into for the next dozen years or so.

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I like how when Democrats are in power, they’re unable to do anything…

          But when Republicans are in power, they break the law at lightning speed, do things they’re not supposed to do, and nobody stops them because actually the only thing staying in their way are “rules” and “decorum” and not “laws” and yet mysteriously the Democrats are always beholden to “laws” that prevent them from doing the same. Also it seems like Democrats hands are tied at actually bringing criminal charges against Republicans because that would be “partisan.”[1] Just look at how they’ve slow-walked Trump’s prosecution and only went for it when it became clear he would never comply.

          It’s a fucking farce.


          1. https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/politics/fbi-doj-trump-investigation-january-6/index.html ↩︎

      • minorsecond@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wouldn’t the Rs just do the same thing next time they have power? I get what you’re saying, but isn’t setting that precedent dangerous?

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re saying that as if the Rs won’t do the same thing anyway without prior provocation. They’ve literally already broken the law to pack the court and the Democrats sat on their hands. They denied Obama picking a justice because it was “too close to an election” when the election was like six months away, but let Trump pick one when an election was already underway.

          Take off the fucking blinders, the Republicans already do these kind of things.

          They already set the precedent.

        • riseuppikmin[he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes- the court is an illegitimate anti-democratic institution and the long-term goal should be its abolishment.

          It is the final tool of the American oligarchs to prevent needed structural change in the country.

          Anything to highlight this is a good thing. Playing ping-pong with court expansion would be great to accelerate its necessary demise.

        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          R’s don’t care about precedent. That’s why they actually get what they want. If Democrats actually got things done, they would consistently win elections and it would be be an issue anyway.

          It’s not going to happen anyway, though.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course it upsets the Dems knowing that they’re on the only side that has to govern well and we honest.

        But the alternative is for our side to be as much of a malignant tumor on the country as the other side is.

        I’ll take this version of the Democratic party, despite the fact the Republicans are trying to destroy the US and rebuild it in their own image.

    • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Without a socialist party (as in, completely purged and free of all bourgeois influence), there’s isn’t a whole lot worth voting for at the federal level. Democrats repeatedly show that they are incapable of resisting the Republicans and take L’s constantly (see here).

      I encourage everyone to instead organize with local political orgs that can eventually build this power. The DSA being the largest currently available (and just as flawed as the other options one may have, ofc)

      • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you don’t feel it’s worth keeping as many Rs out of Federal roles, then no amount of examples are going to change your mind.

        You can’t ignore the federal level because the Dems aren’t liberal enough.

      • Compass Inspector@invariant-marxism.red
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m confused- you call for a socialist party that is completely free of bourgeois influence which I agree with, but then you namedrop the DSA - a “big tent” reformist group. DSA members run as democrats in elections and they endorse democratic candidates, so they definitely aren’t free of bourgeoisie influence.

        The capitalist regime will never allow a peaceful transition of power to a socialist party - through voting or otherwise. History has shown this repeatedly. “Democratic rights” are exercised in a manner that serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, thus democracy is nothing but a smokescreen for the dictatorship of Capital.

        “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” --Marx

        Most importantly, we should emphasize internationalism over localism. Capitalism is international and globally inter-linked, so must be the struggle for socialism.

        https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1957/fundamentals.htm

        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree with your assesment of the DSA, but our audience here isn’t ready for that. I want them to get into the DSA where we can continue trashing on them until they do something more useful.

          They aren’t going to go from defending Democratic Party failures to Maoist Third-Worldist guerilla fighters (the correct sect of socialists, of course) overnight.

        • OrangeSlice@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah just fixed that, “see here” was meant to refer to this student debt situation in the OP

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Damn, I was hoping for a well documented compendium of Democrat L’s that have been taken because they’re too cowardly to stand up for their constituents.