Saguaro Socialist

always said that the founders were wrong to get rid of knighthoods! if we all had to call Elon Musk sir it would be v annoying but probably the world would be better

yeah everyone is so purposefully obtuse about this. although I do think that as 2028 gets closer it gets easier, at least in theory ("we're going to vote him out and we are going to be ready to do a revolution if he doesn't leave.") TBD if Dems are brave enough to go there though

this is wrong sorry. She is competent-ish but has like negative rizz

i feel like this makes sense given the current level of democratic backsliding in the US? like in semi-authoritarian countries, i feel like it's common for activists who care about a specific cause (feminism, the environment) to actually spent a lot of their time on human rights issues more broadly

10000000% agree

!!!

They would have to abolish filibuster to pass this, right? Any indication that they might?

god i want to read an oral history of CHAZ so much

yeah I was wondering lol

meaning right now, not in march

wait what did you want to see happen? like what would you have done in Schumer's shoes? genuine q

you have to convince them that the police (in general or in a specific instance) are not actually keeping them safe, and that you have an alternative plan that will do a better job at preserving order and preventing violence. i think zohran does that here

fair point. i actually think this is such a smart move

i think voters are actually very resistant to the idea that we need to reduce police funding for budgetary reasons. people will pick "safety" over free transit or childcare programs any day of the week

yeah i mean hard to pivot too much, unlike foreign policy there's no question that policing is squarely inside any mayor's area of responsibility

from your lips to god's ears

what's annoying is that most people actually involved in organizing / politics know better than to do this, even if they *do* ultimately have a radical abolitionist vision. this type of stuff usually comes from 1) academics 2) activists who primarily operate online and want clout

Because actually the plan isn't the midterms, never was. The only real plan available to anyone is to white knuckle it to 2028 and do our best to dissuade and obstruct Trump and his cronies along the way (unless you're prepared to try to overthrow the government, which I think we are....not)

Basically what I'm getting at is that all of us in the bluesky crowd is going to be MORE mad at Dem leadership in 2027, not less. "Having a majority in one chamber" is not going to be a solution for the problem of "ICE acting like a paramilitary in MN"

So all the more reason to expect shutdowns!! I just think it's unlikely that post-midterms, you are going to consistently get bipartisan negotiations that reach outcomes that the GOP (and their base) and the Dems (and their base) can mutually accept

Well right, but in this case the president is nuts. In the Boehner scenario nutcases controlled key votes in the House, in the 2027 scenario the nutcases control the WH. Both things mean the appropriations becomes an ugly game of chicken instead of a tidy negotiation about who has the votes

God forbid that Dems are in charge of a chamber, really - the base is going to make it impossible for them to pass any budget that Trump could conceivably sign, and Trump will be happy to keep the government closed and create chaos and blame them

Like, Trump is going to be very very happy to veto a budget passed by a Dem controlled House, shut down the government, cut funding for SNAP, and watch the Dems squirm while their leadership goes on TV and tries to argue that they are being treated unfairly

But doesn't that description assume that the president (in this scenario) cares more about passing a budget than the congressional opposition? When in reality the opposite is true

The Obama era shutdowns were in a scenario where the GOP controlled one chamber and that didn't seem to give them a ton more leverage than what Dems currently have, but maybe I am missing something

This is genuine curiosity, by the way - I never seem to see anyone spell this out!

But how? In what specific ways? Because a lot of stuff that "was always true" just isn't true anymore in the Trump era, so it's worth considering whether this is one of those things.

Like how do you think this exact scenario with DHS, etc, would be playing out if Dems had come into control of one of the chambers a week ago? How would things be different than the current status quo?

But doesn't that exact same analysis apply to the scenario where Dems control Congress? Regardless of whether or not it gives them more narrative setting power, etc, the fundamental leverage is the same.

but what power will Dems have in 2027 *after* winning the midterms, and how will that power differ from "we will stop funding the government unless Trump does X" ?

they won't be able to impeach or override vetoes, so...........

fuck we're on the timeline where Will Stancil turns out to be Desmoulins