I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote, you should, just like you should attend protests, but know that is does nothing to fix the issue. Only violence will solve this problem.

If you aren’t arming yourself, you aren’t doing enough. Soon will come the time for incredible violence, either prepare or wait for death.

removed by mod

Seriously, these hopeless and cynical attitudes are getting old and fast, and then they complain about their reps being useless!

There will be marches. Attend. There will be elections. Vote. There are channels. Organize.

Part of the agreement to let all states have their independence would be some basic requirements. One of those requirements would likely be that the new states have to allow freedom of movement and migration from the other US states, at the very least for several years after the national divorce. Ideally the president orchestrating this would negotiate some sort of basic EU-style customs and trade union. So the states can set their own laws and national policies, but people can move freely between the various new nations. Hell, most states would likely want this anyway. Does Mississippi really want to trap blue voters in its borders without giving them any relief valve? I would think they would be far happier just maintaining open border deals with the other new states, thus allowing people to simply vote with their feet if they don’t want to stay in Mississippi. The alternative is that you end up having a mini civil war inside the borders of just one state.

Something like that might actually work. There’s a reason the oldest nations on Earth tend to be smaller geographically. Very large countries with vast regional differences in politics, needs, and desires tend to not be stable long term. Countries as big as the US tend to either break up or only maintain their integrity by collapsing into authoritarianism. You can force a dysfunctional union together with enough violence. But government is meant to serve the needs of the people, not the people the needs of the government. The federal government was created by human beings to serve our needs. Remember of the people, by the people, for the people? If our existing nation is no longer serving our needs, it’s OK to let it go. We don’t have to keep propping up this corpse of a nation just for the sake of tradition. Americans, as a people, aren’t going anywhere. We’ll still be Americans whether we share one state or many.

It’s the cold sober realism that comes with looking at where we have been, where we are, and where we’re headed. You’re just in denial.

Such a hypothetical president could add some basic terms to their dissolution plan. They would be in a position to organize a treaty between the new nations. And part of the agreement to let states have their independence is that freedom of travel must be preserved between the states, similar to how the EU operates. So people can always vote with their feet and leave.

But if you’re asking if we can preserve the nation just to help blue voters in red states, I’m sorry. Ultimately the people of each state are going to have to be responsible for their own fate. I would owe nothing more to the citizens of Alabama than I do the citizens of Azerbaijan. It’s your country, not mine. You’re responsible for it. If your countrymen want to turn their nation into the seventh circle of Hell, well those are their sins, not ours.

I know it sucks, and it’s not fair to a lot of good people. But the likely alternative is that the city you cherish so much will be burned to ashes in the civil war we are inexorably marching towards. Realize, I do not champion as radical a solution as complete national dissolution lightly. If I didn’t think the alternative was a horrific and bloody war, I wouldn’t think to recommend it.

A second civil war would be so, so much worse than the first one. The destructive technology is so much greater. And we wouldn’t even be divided between two nice clear blocks of North and South. We would have fighting between states and within states. And foreign adversaries will be happy to contribute to help fan the flames even more. At least with the first civil war foreign powers were mostly content to ignore the US; it was a remote backwater at the time. But now? The US is a global hegemon, and we have no shortage of adversaries that would love to see us burn. China and Russia will probably be arming both sides of the conflict, just happy to see us tear each other to pieces. I’m worried about millions of people being killed, tens of millions displaced, most of our greatest cities turned into bombed-out wrecks, and our entire society seeing a massive and permanent decline in our quality of life and standard of living. Look at the images of the leveled cities of Syria. That is our future on the path we are currently on.

We could walk that road, or we could have some maturity and wisdom and say, “look, this nation clearly isn’t working anymore. It was assembled based on compromises for the world of 1780, and it’s no longer working for us.” Instead of tearing ourselves apart violently, let’s just go for a peaceful national divorce. No one needs to die. We don’t have tens of millions made homeless. We don’t have to watch as all the great cities and infrastructure we’ve spent generations building are reduced to bombed-out craters. We can simply walk away with all of our lives, infrastructure, and national wealth intact. Even if the national divorce was a difficult and expensive process, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what we will lose in the civil war that awaits us.

You might want to add a /s on that.

Because dumb assholes have been blaming everything the GOP does on the DNC for decades and its killing millions of people.

Him making a show of being a good guy but doing nothing in actuality makes sense.

I just kind of assume this of career politicians. How can you sit in there for so long, doing nothing, just taking payout after payout

You know what, I can agree with that 😆

The claim was he came out against Mamdani, though, where is the evidence of that?

Also, the second article I presented don’t like Mamdani so the only way it makes sense for PR is if they’re quietly promoting Republicans.

well exactly what he is doing here, superficially looking like he is doing something where as doing nothing when and where it matters

More semantics really.

pretty sure this is about the general election, after the primary, thus it’s blue against red (or blue against blue against red since apparently cuomo is deciding not to take the hint)

im also maybe seeing that schumer was saying some stuff positive about mamdami but just didn’t endorse him?

i don’t have the time to figure out all that nuance before i send this reply so for now i’ll leave it as a question mark and encourage investigation into trusted sources

Jesus Christ. Pure evil.

They’ve stated their plan is to let it happen until it’s so bad people vote Trump out which is hilarious considering everyone wanted to call people on the left accelerationists. Now accelerationism is the only strategy the Democrats have, and where are all the people who so loudly opposed accelerationism? I can barely find anyone even using that word anymore.

Like helping Donald avert a government shutdown.

They’re not even willing to make it inconvenient for fascists to take power.

The candidates you want aren’t backed by donors. We need to vote for the progressives that often run in primaries. Take it from a political analyst if you don’t believe me.

Stop rewarding the people who can afford to reach you in your living room. Research the candidates on your primary ballots and vote in every election.

There is a reason behind this lack of majority though: they’ve failed to energize voters

Also, Dems could have abused the reconciliation process in order to pass legislation too, but didn’t.

That happened with this bill as well. The Senate Parliamentarian is a non-partisan position, who is charged with the responsibility of verifying the legality of provisions.

Elizabeth Macdonough, the Senate Parliamentarian since 2012, declared the Republican’s provision to exempt Alaska and Hawaii from the Medicare and SNAP cuts was invalid due to the Byrd rule, for example. Murkowski voted for the bill anyway, because she cares more about pleasing Big Oil than her constituents.

https://time.com/7296762/big-beautiful-bill-byrd-rule/

The media wasn’t silent. It was overridden by Trump’s Accusations Auschwitz. You need to watch CSPAN if you want to know what’s happening in the government.

Republicans also just ignored the parliamentarian when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed during Donald’s first term.

A filibuster cannot be used on a reconciliation bill. It’s time to understand our system before going back to hive-mind finger pointing. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/budget-reconciliation-simplified/

Yep, they were so traumatized by losing to Reagan that they abandoned everything they ever stood for and started racing right trying to find the “center” and to this day think it’s the only way to win.