Quote:
Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore
Assassination?
Game over.
|
Just when things seemed to be normalizing.
People need to take a fucking Xanax and stop thinking politics is a zero-sum game for the future of humanity.
The rot from which lunacy like that which we saw on Saturday stems started way back with Newt Gingrich going after the Clintons like they were enemies of the state. There's a straight line from Ken Starr to the Russiagate debacle to the Hunter Biden prosecution and through the Trump NY criminal and civil fraud cases. Banana republic behavior. A lunatic belief that everything is so fucking important, all means are on the table.
Joe gets elected this fall? The sun will rise. Trump gets elected? The sun will rise. Might it cost you in one way or another? Sure, but generally, what you lose in one area gets replaced in another.
Case in point... I scanned the salient points of 2025 Project. It's disturbing, and it's batshit crazy. But it's also entirely contingent on an administrative state being able to implement its edicts. It's dependent on the power of agencies to enforce. The very same agencies that were just stripped of a ton of power under
Loper. If you look at 2025 in relation to
Loper, you see the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP pre-emptively gelding the Heritage Foundation/Religious Right wing of it.
Yes, who is President matters to certain groups who are dependent on the state. But here we're also faced with a false choice. One can vote D and they'll make sure people like us, and the very rich, and the very poor, are catered to. While the working and middle class gets lip service and called "racists" for voting for the GOP. One can vote R and they'll make sure people like us, those richer than us, and small to midsized businesses are catered to while those mostly or totally dependent on the state are ignored.
Either way, you're voting for a sector of society to get fucked. Because neither of these parties help all the groups comprising society. Their serving of slightly different constituencies is what makes them a choice each election. Congrats if you're of the upper middle class or above - you get to choose who below loses something in service to you keeping something.
This is why I giggle when people bring morality into politics in regard to the parties' treatment of the folks at the lower rungs. Ain't nothing moral in being asked to select who gets porridge and who gets cruel. The argument one should favor the truly desperate over the hard working but still struggling is no better than the argument one should favor the hard working and still struggling over the truly desperate.
