61
JOE WALSH:
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
61 points (100.0% liked)
Occupy Democrats
60 readers
471 users here now
Occupy Democrats is a merger of the goals and interests of Occupy with those of the Democratic Party.
founded 3 days ago
MODERATORS
I... disagree? I think we should have a limited government as set forth in the constitution? This is almost as great an idea as Californians gerrymandering themselves out of having any potential third party. Who needs democracy when you have Democrats?
The point would be to highlight MAGAt hypocrisy, not to actually get a third Obama term. At least, that's how I interpret it.
Highlighting MAGA hypocrisy has never, and will never, work.
You seem to think the only two voting blocs in the country are hardcore MAGA and never-Trumpers. There are a lot of people in the middle who are currently being horrified by Trump's actions and will respond to his hypocrisy being highlighted. It may not be enough to stop this fascist movement on its own, but each new person who becomes aware and engaged gets us closer to taking some power back.
Maybe it wouldn't work. I don't see how it could make things worse though and so its worth a try in my opinion.
Ending it with a call to action for Democrats seems pretty clear to me, but he really could be playing 5D chess or whatever. I wonder where I've heard the argument that somebody's direct quotes are being misinterpreted... Maybe I'm just too sensitive about preserving the constitution, maybe it's just a joke and I should lighten up.
The call to action was to fight. That could mean "fight to get Obama elected again" but I don't think that's the only obvious interpretation.
And yeah, The Constitution is a joke because no one seems to be taking its most important parts (separation of powers, limited executive, states rights) seriously. The Republicans are far more brazen on this than the Dems at this point but both parties have been ignoring or distorting it for decades.
Then the only solution is authoritarianism, you've convinced me...
Like, what are you actually fighting for at this point? The constitution is the most important democratic institution we have, more than Congress, more than the media, more than the polls. It is literally the thing that separates dictatorships from democracies! An unlimited government is a kingdom.
I'm fighting for the irrelevance of both corporate parties so we can go back to actually functioning within the parameters of the constitution. Walsh's suggestion is a short term tactic that might derail Trump's attempt to get a third term. It is certainly not my goal to perpetuate the irrelevance of the Constitution. I just recognize the reality that it hasn't meant much in quite some time now.
You can't just turn it off and turn it on again, it takes decades or centuries of work, and thousands to millions of deaths, to overcome the loss of a democracy.
Then that's what we're in for because we lost our Democracy long before Trump took office.
But you're still fighting for the wrong side. Accelerationism is not going to benefit anyone, it will only quicken our demise and push democratic revival further away.
You seem to be making some false assumptions about me.
I am not an accelerationist. I don't want to see the collapse of our society. I don't want to throw out the Constitution. I simply acknowledge that our society is already collapsing and that much of the Constitution is currently being ignored or distorted to the benefit of the ultra rich and a few special interests that don't give a shit about us.
I do want to see the collapse of the corporate duopoly that has maintained the illusion of democratic choice while slowly but consistently (and now much more rapidly under Trump 2.0) concentrating more and more power in the office of the President. That way we can actually realize the promise of a government by, of, and for The People.
All of your goals are possible within the framework of the constitution. The expressed purpose of it is to limit power to the government. There are no mentions of political parties, there is no mention of a unitary executive.
Decades from now, people will look back and see who fought for the constitution, and who fought against it. That is how we will be judged.
It feels like you're not responding to what I'm saying but rather arguing with a strawman that you built in your head. I am not interested in defending your strawman, so I'm out.
Have a nice day.
You're ignoring game theory and history. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Nothing more. And there is no constitution or law you can write that cannot be stretched with a bogus interpretation to mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
Democracies are only stable when both sides recognize a kind of mutually assured destruction. Sure, your side can seek unlimited power by making crazy interpretations of every law and constitutional provision. But if you do so, you better be sure the other side doesn't do the same. And even if you're able to use your bogus interpretations to stifle fair elections, you have to worry about the other side eventually embracing some interpretation of the Constitution that would allow open armed rebellion. Then you have an actual civil war on your hands. And the business interests that drive both parties ultimately aren't served by the country tearing itself apart by turning into another Syria.
Instead, democracies work when both sides recognize, "that outcome is bad for all of us. Let's just agree to good-faith interpretation of the rules and settle our differences through reasonably honest electoralism."
This is the only way democracy can function. If one side is willing to continually push the line, but the other isn't, you end up with authoritarianism and autocracy. They know they can act with impunity and bad-faith efforts, and the other side will try to take the high road. In extreme cases, like American Democrats, one side wants to take the high road all the way to the gallows.
The only way any democracy can survive is if both sides are willing to meet escalation with escalation. The threat of the other side using an equally bad-faith interpretation is the only thing that can potentially keep a side honest. If there are no consequences, then they have no reason not to push the line and abuse of power further and further.
If Trump is going to run for a third term, Obama absolutely should run for a third term. Would such an Obama run be based on a poor interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution? Yes. But again, it's just a piece of paper. It isn't self-enforcing. Only balance of power between the two political camps can maintain a stable democracy. Both sides need to be pulling on the rope with similar strength. This is ultimately what prevents further slide into autocracy. Hell, if he was smart, Obama in a third term should have just as corrupt a justice department as Trump. Start bogus prosecutions of Republican leaders. Ideally, use that pressure to force laws through Congress that will constrain future presidents from such abuses.
Your sentiments are noble, but this sentiment, the reflexive need to always take the high road, is precisely why we have the Trump regime. Republicans are willing to escalate, while Democrats seek compromise and servile conciliation, always seeking to be the better person. This cowardly approach, this refusal to accept that democracy is a peace treaty based on mutually opposed strength, is what has lead us to our current political moment.
Democracy is a tug-of-war. If you're not willing to pull, democracy collapses.
That is the dumbest fuckin essay... The ammendment is clear as day, it's not an interpretation issue. And we could change it, it's a living document, there's a process for it. That is not what is being suggested here.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.