Newspaper Headlines That Make You Want to Give Up on Life

undo wrote:idk it just seems like this is exactly how they want it to go down? This is also our last chance to do literally anything at all about known crimes before they seize control in a year and get carte blanche for everything forever

This is how the Democrats want it to go down which is the problem. The party is 90%+ careerist losers who just want to split the difference between the upper middle class and working people to maintain the status quo. They want to fake a fuss, but they believe that doubling down on procedure and accountability is a losing argument politically for multiple reasons. One, because a lot of them would also be in jail for corruption if that was actually a central tenant of our government. Second, they are stupid and think voters are too stupid to reward them for prosecuting politicians. It's a "conventional wisdom" thing they are convinced of that I think is totally wrong.

You and I don't represent any meaningful slice of the electorate. Other voters would need to indicate that they would turn out and vote for Democrats if they prosecuted Donald Trump and his associates. I think they would, but I think the conventional wisdom is that you need to "grab moderates and centrists" and that everyone who supports criminal prosecution for DT already votes Democrat. Again, I think that's totally wrong and elections are clearly about turnout.

So, I think it's counterproductive to support the current crop of Democrats who have indicated with every fiber of their being that accountability doesn't matter to them and they prefer a laissez-faire, wildly corrupt system that enriches them. They should "move on" from their stupid posturing and vote for some kitchen table legislation or get the fuck out of there, since we know they're bluffing on accountability.

There's tons of people with the same policy views of these careerist, elitist, Democratic scum who need to take their place. So we should also work to "move them on" and replace them with younger people with more political courage to fight important battles, regardless of specific policy views.

A couple leftys can't simply want something and make it happen. The reason I think it's important to call out their insincerity is that we need to work towards providing this other option.

All that being said, if the AG of New York wants to nut up and prosecute his ass, I'm all for it! That's what she should be doing. She's a prosecutor and he should be prosecuted. Hopefully politicians won't stop her.

Chrono more eloquently fleshed out what I meant by “move on”. Prosecuting Trump and January 6 remains a leading story even though - perhaps cynically - I don’t believe anything will come of it. Same thing with the Mueller investigation. It was never going to bring Trump himself down.

All of this shit would just fuel Republicans when they are back in power to attack Democrats and the Democrats knowing this don’t actually want to move this forward. But obviously clicks and ad dollars are most important and I’m sure all metrics point to higher clicks and registrations when Trump-focused articles are leading headlines.

I say move on because it just strikes me as lazy reporting at this point. Write about issues and stories that are more relevant in this moment. It’s like everyone is working at Buzzfeed listicle level standards and it’s just a shame.

Nick wrote:Prosecuting Trump and January 6 remains a leading story even though - perhaps cynically - I don’t believe anything will come of it. Same thing with the Mueller investigation. It was never going to bring Trump himself down.

I am incapable of perceiving this opinion as anything other than Monday morning quarterbacking (not by you specifically). Obviously in hindsight mistakes were made. Resources, time and political capital were squandered. It failed so it was always going to fail and the present moment we live in was always the only possibility. I just don't know if that's the lesson we need to come away with? Never impeach a Republican president or call for accountability of a Republican politician ever again because there's no point?

We have to regard this as sour grapes because it's a matter of psychological self-preservation.

If you do not pursue these "legitimate" pathways towards justice then what do you have left? Do Americans just start assassinating politicians because they literally know that there is no other way to remove malevolent incompetence (however that is perceived by various voter demographics) from the highest levels of power?

I'm gravitating more and more to the idea that the Democratic Party doesn't actually care about achieving any of the platforms that it's campaigned, particularly over the last decade although I have no illusions of it ever being some ideologically "pure" entity at any point in my lifetime, let alone ever (save for its pre-Civil Rights era support of segregation, perhaps). I don't believe there's any hope of changing it or giving it a "wake up call" (lol) via some voter boycott that's only going to accelerate the demise of our broken democracy and absolutely plunge us into a new era of fascism in 5 years instead of, say, 20 or so (still waiting for someone who's not a libertarian to make the case for why this would be necessary, productive or "good"). Like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Tom Perez (yes, Jaime Harrison has his old job but I'm not quite as bitter about this loser as I'm sure I will be in another few years) or any of the Democrats who are rushing to retire right now (because they don't want that L on their resume as they transition into the private sector) or the hundreds of incompetent but handsomely-reimbursed political consultants that have engineered one election loss after another would lose even a second of sleep over such a thing happening.

I voted Nader in 2000, I know how this works on people and what it results in.

I'm reading everything I just wrote and it seems like I'm putting an awful lot of words in your mouth right up front there and I don't really mean to do that, I don't know this is just how I board now as my brain enters this new phase of incomprehensible reality and gradual physical decline.

Let me be clear, the Democrats suck and the media sucks. They opened the doors for all this and have little invested in where it's actually going to lead to. Dems get to be victims and talk a big game while knowing (with great relief?) that they never have to do anything because it's not like they even can any longer. The press gets more tremendous content.

I would love to drop out and not care anymore. I have the privilege of being able to do this. Will I ever have the resolve?

I think the key point you raise is that the Democratic Party doesn’t want to bring about change that they campaign on or their voters care about. I think this because it would probably not be in the interest of their donors or their own investments to push that change.

I’ve posted this before but the two parties are really on the same side. A few issues here and there but otherwise aligned and aligned in some atrocious ways.

It’s for this reason Trump was never going to be “brought down” or removed from office. And I actually believe a large part of that investigation was fueled by an atmosphere of reality denial that HRC could actually lose and election and especially an election to Trump. She was anointed before Obama’s 2nd term was over and the establishment were so in shock that she lost they had to search for a conspiracy and push that as much as they could.

At least Republicans listen to their voters and let those voters drive the direction of their decisions (obviously this is terrible but this is kind of how it's supposed to work???)

Democrats consider their base to be idiots who don't know what's best for them and are better off being managed and corralled than being a force that ought to be factored into policy and candidates. HRC was always going to be the candidate. Biden was always going to be the candidate. You can't say this about Obama but true to form, they learned nothing at all from that experience.

I mean fuck, I don't know maybe Republican thinking was exactly the same when they nominated McCain and Romney. Good on them for finally learning that's a strategy for total losers? Dems are going to ride it out all the way to the end because that's what they do and how it's always gotta be.

It's a very hopeless place, which is why we have this same conversation over and over.

This isn't a left-leaning country (institutionally or in terms of electorate), so if you're a left-leaning person how do you manipulate the levers of power to pull the country in a progressive direction?

The best thing I can come up with is what I said before: start ignoring policy purity and focus on electing Democrats with character to change the reputation of the party. Admit that the party hasn't been good enough and commit whole hog to working class rhetoric about using the profits of the corporatocracy to put food on everyone's table.

It still won't really "work" but I think it would be a lot better.

If by some miracle we did that, maybe we'd have like 8 members of "the squad" instead of 4 or 5. The change in consciousness that would need to happen on a magnitude of tens of millions more people is always going to be squashed from the top. If it ever actually happened (perhaps too unlikely a possibility to entertain at the unfathomably critical moment that's being met with nothing less than a completely apothetic stasis from Democrats), Dems would not be capable of anticipating it and using it to their advantage. All we can hope for is a hundred AOCs in the waiting ready to take advantage of that complacency.

But I realize that's a fantasy and it ignores the unique opportunity that her district provided her. Perhaps that couldn't happen almost anywhere else or at any other time.

Also, this post isn't some fanboy adoration of The Squad. They are still hamstrung by the apparatus of the party to affect any change, which also removes them from ever having to be that critical vote that's just never going to happen. I prefer them to whatever generic candidate the party would run in their place, obviously. But they are not making big change in the way that the Republicans furthest to the right casually make without doing much of anything at all in the way of their actual congressional duties.

The Democratic Party would love to see Ilhan Omar ******. They could be the victims for a couple weeks and talk about how "This is not who we are" and then have one less voice with a huge platform pushing back against their center-right corporate agenda.

Sorry if I'm just talking to myself here. Today is one of those days.

chrondog wrote:This isn't a left-leaning country (institutionally or in terms of electorate), so if you're a left-leaning person how do you manipulate the levers of power to pull the country in a progressive direction?

Are we sure about this? I just think that we haven't really had a leftist candidate who was willing to run a truly revanchist/populist campaign. What might have happened if the Sanders campaign hired competent advisors who weren't pussy beltway insiders obsessed with the fabricated common sense manufactured by our corporate national media? Maybe it would have still failed but I don't think we can really talk about the ideological nature of our national electorate until this option is fully explored. There is nothing about the history and social composition of the United States that makes it intolerant to class warfare. Quite the opposite, I think.

WP64 wrote:There is nothing about the history and social composition of the United States that makes it intolerant to class warfare. Quite the opposite, I think.

Well, there is the fact that the US government is strongly anti-labor and has used its resources to quell social movements at every turn? The US is widely understood to be much less tolerant of social protest than Western European nations. Our militarized police and the legal means they have to put down dissent are also pretty unrivaled in nations that pretend to have "free association".

Also, to combine undo and WPs points, if there was a populist leftist leader they could theoretically "pull" the electorate toward the left. I think the electorate is very malleable, but it has never been consistently responsive to a progressive message because that message has not been consistently delivered and people don't trust it. I think the electorate could be more left-receptive if there were more well-intentioned leaders making a sensible leftist argument. Right now, they see liberals as disingenuous grifters and conservatives as people who embrace their grift.

Undo, let's start with 8! Then maybe we can have 16 some day.

Honestly, this is why I tell even Bay Area liberals to shut up about things like "the homeless crisis". Sorry, no one really wants to solve homelessness or else we would have because it's easy! Personally, I want to have a legislated housing guarantee but most people don't (or what our system effectively decides is "most people" by disenfranchising a ton of people from the jump). You can't really legislate what people don't want.

chrondog wrote:Well, there is the fact that the US government is strongly anti-labor and has used its resources to quell social movements at every turn? The US is widely understood to be much less tolerant of social protest than Western European nations. Our militarized police and the legal means they have to put down dissent are also pretty unrivaled in nations that pretend to have "free association".

First, there is nothing intrinsically anti-labor about the foundational constitutional structure of the republic. Also, the United States, as the commercial/continental empire of the present, has always included, since the mid-nineteenth century, pro-labor political parties/movements/currents (Radical Republicans, Progressives, New Deal Democrats, etc.) And what about Latin American societies? The Brazilian labor movement endured the brutal repression of a military junta, for example.

chrondog wrote:Also, to combine undo and WPs points, if there was a populist leftist leader they could theoretically "pull" the electorate toward the left. I think the electorate is very malleable, but it has never been consistently responsive to a progressive message because that message has not been consistently delivered and people don't trust it.

How is that progressive message being delivered? What is the tone of the message? Because I think that matters. Right now the "squad" is emblematic of an aspirational progressive liberalism that is completely out of sync with the dominant political mood of the American working class. The easiest way to expand the electorate is to engage in real fights, which means identifying (class) enemies and being unafraid to embrace populist messaging.

Ask yourself if you really think Peronism, as a political movement, would be out of step with the political mood and 'common sense' of the 21st century American electorate. Because I think that is the key to understanding our future political possibilities, which isn't to say that it isn't unproblematic (and perhaps even worthy of criticism and rejection). People in the United States need to stop thinking of themselves as European and start embracing their identity as Americans. The answers lie under our feet.

There's a reason the authoritarian left is growing. It's interesting. Not a lot of other options, despite the problems. I think a lot of leftists are realizing they'd rather be problematic and in charge.

Fully agree on embracing aggressive populism and a truly American progressivism that doesn't look at the useless Scandanavian example. In some ways, the politics of the squad is too "feminine" when American politics is intensely masculine.

chrondog wrote:In some ways, the politics of the squad is too "feminine" when American politics is intensely masculine.

This, unfortunately.

Super disappointed in the inability of candidates like Randy Bryce or Richard Ojeda to get across the line. Like it or not, if blue collar dudes cannot "see themselves" in progressive movements, you're not going to be able to reach a lot of them that could otherwise be persuadable or receptive to any appeals to their better angels. Totally sucks and I'm not saying I think that's cool and normal, just that I think that's a problem that matters.

Where's Ted Kennedy when you need him!! The liberal lion!!

Eh, rather than wade through what I agree with and disagree with that's been said here, I'll go back to the topic this page is essentially retconning for: Yes, democrats are worthless, the media is terrible, and it's beyond stupid that Trump isn't rotting in a cell in Corsica right now. But having said that, obviously every new detail coming in about Jan. 6 etc. should be on television and radio and internet as frequently and as long as possible, if not because it will result in prosecutions, then because the american people deserve to know, because some of the players are in power or are seeking power, because the republican party is trying to pretend that this was no big deal and are wearing it proudly, and because the only thing that will keep Trump from the republican nomination is a (perhaps unlikely) prosecution, or if he doesn't run. Benghazi was a huge nothing that resulted in few changes and fewer charges, but they ran it nonstop for four years and it had the actual desired effect. I get that it's an insultingly dumb game but unless something changes, like, tomorrow, it must be played.

Respectable. I disagree because I think the Democrats insincerity makes their game hollow.

Benghazi was total bullshit and Republicans kept that shit up for half a decade with a straight face. Democrats are shit liars and can't convincingly do that.

It's more that we as the Democratic voters don't have to let incumbent Democrats get away with this shit and pretend they're "standing up to Trump". We should replace all of them with someone who thinks political accountability matters, which is not careerist Democrats.

chrondog wrote:There's a reason the authoritarian left is growing. It's interesting. Not a lot of other options, despite the problems. I think a lot of leftists are realizing they'd rather be problematic and in charge.

Fully agree on embracing aggressive populism and a truly American progressivism that doesn't look at the useless Scandanavian example. In some ways, the politics of the squad is too "feminine" when American politics is intensely masculine.

Exactly. I have some interesting political disagreements with friends about this kind of stuff. They always problematize the image of the 'working class' as a white American male in the manufacturing sector who is the single bread winner of a traditional nuclear family because that sort of mythologized political subject can only appeal to revanchist politics that aren't even necessarily anchored in class identity. And of course they are objectively right. Not only is the American working class incredibly racially diverse but some of the most militant elements are public sector care givers (nurses) and teachers responsible for the actual process of social reproduction.

Those are all facts. I don't disagree with them. And I completely agree that a resurgent organized labor movement capable of mass political action will necessarily emanate from these social layers. At the same time, I do think there is a tonal disconnect between 'the squad' as a political brand and their potential electorate. That could be entirely informed by my own class position and the fact that my social circle is disproportionately young, white, downwardly-mobile, middle-class men. Nonetheless, that is a lot of the population and they have legitimate social grievances that deserve real political representation and it would be nice if someone other than fringe, right-wing lunatics actually attempted to speak on their behalf.

chrondog wrote: We should replace all of them with someone who thinks political accountability matters, which is not careerist Democrats.

I mean, I agree with this

Also Republicans are terrible liars, one dude said on camera Benghazi was only about hurting Clinton, it's just republican voters will go along with anything so long as their favorite radio host/podcasteur/fox news "personality" instructs them to.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/595315-psaki-says-binge-watching-the-west-wing-got-her-back-into

i don't know if i want to live in a world where Ug from salute your shorts isn't around

https://www.avclub.com/r-i-p-kirk-baily-ug-from-salute-your-shorts-1848610742

Epic Games Acquires Bandcamp as ‘Fortnite’ Maker Expands Into Music

Ned Braden wrote:i don't know if i want to live in a world where Ug from salute your shorts isn't around

https://www.avclub.com/r-i-p-kirk-baily-ug-from-salute-your-shorts-1848610742

Oh man.

chrondog wrote:There's a reason the authoritarian left is growing. It's interesting. Not a lot of other options, despite the problems. I think a lot of leftists are realizing they'd rather be problematic and in charge.

Fully agree on embracing aggressive populism and a truly American progressivism that doesn't look at the useless Scandanavian example. In some ways, the politics of the squad is too "feminine" when American politics is intensely masculine.

I study the left a lot and I would boil it down to:

Good intentions meets bad execution and a lack of common sense. They don't understand simple things like "don't put the cart before the horse".