|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Whether it was good or bad publicity, it inspired you to learn more about the position of your own impetus. Would you have done so if she took the safe route by saying "of course serial murderers still need to be imprisoned"?
|
On June 25 2026 06:55 LightSpectra wrote:
Whether it was good or bad publicity, it inspired you to learn more about the position of your own impetus. Would you have done so if she took the safe route by saying "of course serial murderers still need to be imprisoned"?
Sure I would have, and it would have seemed like a much more realistic position with that acknowledgement explicitly being stated. For me, it's a net-negative when someone completely dodges a relevant question over and over and over again.
|
United States44247 Posts
On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny.
I liked it.
|
On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it.
Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately.
You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs.
|
On June 25 2026 06:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:
She could have answered the question better. But it's perhaps a success in drawing attention to the fact that even if a very small number of criminals are utterly irredeemable (which is controversial), the vast majority aren't. There's no reason why America shouldn't adopt a much more humane rehabilitation system like they have in Denmark that results in significantly less recidivism. If she simply said "yes, I still think serial murderers should be imprisoned" then we wouldn't even be talking about this at all. I'm not so sure that all publicity is good publicity, but I'm with you that our prison system needs to be significantly reformed and that we can emulate other countries that do it so much better than we do. Happy birthday, btw! Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 05:37 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 04:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 03:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2026 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 03:35 Introvert wrote:
She's the prison abolitionist who refused to say murderers should be locked up? Bonkers. Also as is normal the person with socialist in their platform did better in the richer areas, because of course. Would you mind posting the entire cited quote or video clip that this is from, so that we could see/hear the exact words and surrounding context? https://nyeditorialboard.substack.com/p/darializa-avila-chevalier-on-housing
Nicole Gelinas
Just speaking of human rights and human dignity, you’ve been a prison abolitionist, a decarceralist. What should happen to somebody who has killed somebody else? I mean, I went to a sentencing last week, a man killed another man, didn’t know the person, just sitting on a stoop, got a 18-year prison sentence. Should that person not go to prison? And what should happen instead?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
So, you know, for prison abolitionists, I think a lot of folks misunderstand what that vision of the world actually is. And it is one that actually centers this question of harm. At the heart of what we’re asking is: What, why is it that there is so much harm in our society?
And how do we, A, prevent it, and B, deal with it when it happens. And as someone who has worked with folks who have been incarcerated, who have felt ostracized, for lack of a better term, by so many facets of our society for being poor, for being Black, for being Latino. I work at a public defender’s office where most of our clients are incredibly poor Black and brown New Yorkers. And for so many, the crimes that they’re being indicted for are crimes of poverty, or the effects of poverty.
And when I think about this question of harm, I think how do we create a society where people feel so safe that they don’t need to pick up the phone and call the police. And when harm does happen, how do we actually create repair? Because what we have right now is a system in whenever harm happens, there’s more harm being perpetrated, not only on the folks who engaged in the harm, but also on the victims of the harm. I’m someone who has actually been the victim of crimes, of violence, and gone to the police as a young person thinking, doing the thing that society told me to do, and all that did was traumatize me more.
Josh Greenman
But what do you do to the murderer though? Or what do you do—
Darializa Avila Chevalier
But and so I’m trying to answer the question, which is that— What we do is that we then put people behind bars in incredibly traumatizing conditions in a context where they cannot actually reflect on the harm that they caused or feel any remorse on that because they’re just trying to survive inside, and they’re being re-traumatized day after day after day while inside. And then when they’re released, they’re bringing that trauma back to our community, and that is having a reverberating effect on everyone in our society. And so as an abolitionist, you know, when you think about this question of harm, we have to think not only about interrupting that cycle of harm but also preventing it from the onset. And part of that has to do with thinking about, what are the systems that actually reduce that harm from happening in the first place?
And I have spoken to clients at public defender’s office where you hear the larger story of what happened, and it was folks who were under so much stress from the conditions that they were facing that they lashed out in a way that was out of character, in ways that they deeply regret. They don’t have a way to actually repair now because they don’t have a pathway towards that. You see folks who just need access to medical care. I had, at one of the jobs I had many years ago, a client who would actually intentionally get arrested because being on Rikers was the only way that he could get access to his bipolar medication. And this is a reflection of a larger failure of our system to actually protect our people from harm, to think about harm in a more expansive way, and actually address it meaningfully and effectively.
Josh Greenman
But, did we answer what happens to the murderer? Do you not incarcerate the murderer?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
You know, again, I’m talking about this question between the distance between the world we want to see and the world that we’re at. And tomorrow, you know, when that instance happens, that [incarceration] is what’s going to happen, right? And I don’t think anyone in society questions that that’s what’s going to happen.
Ben Smith
But can you get a little less abstract? Like she was watching a jury vote on the guy’s guilty, should he be sentenced or not?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
Well, this is what I’m saying is that when that happens, and as someone who has sat in so many courtrooms, to me, all of that is tragic. The fact that the murder happened is tragic. The fact that there was a circumstance in which that could even come to pass is tragic, and all of that is a reflection of systems that allowed that circumstance to be possible. And so, you know, I have always focused my attention on how do we create systems where that’s not even the possibility.
As a bonus it appears she wants no one to ever be deported for any reason and wants everyone to vote including non-citizens. Thanks for posting the interview. I don't think she did the Prison Abolition movement any favors there. I feel like she could have still stressed the importance of gradually reducing prison populations and eventually replacing jails with proper rehabiliation centers / whatever her specific vision is, without completely dodging the question about murderers. Her dodges make her position seem very incomplete. I'm going to agree with you here. I don't even know if she's thought about phasing in her program, or if she actually has an answer to hardened criminals/repeat criminals. Prison abolitionists have to answer whether all prisons are gone, who still goes to prison if any, and what about recidivism within non-prison alternatives. I'm not interested if she thinks 40 years from now violent crime is at 10% of today because we've done such a bang-up job of fixing root causes. Yeah definitely. Her lack of an answer regarding murderers made me curious as to what other prison abolitionists might say about what to do with violent criminals. I found this article from another political abolitionist, where the author starts with their stated goal: "The most common question posed to abolitionists is “what about the rapists and murderers?” Most people are not satisfied with the answer they receive. This article is an attempt to break this question down further from my perspective as an abolitionist." https://transformharm.org/ab_resource/what-about-the-rapists-and-murderers/ I feel like most people who pose the question are just generally looking for an acknowledgement that dangerous people need to (at least temporarily) be removed from society, and the author above seems to struggle with immediately making that acknowledgement alongside promoting rehabilitation, just like how Chevalier struggled in her interview. The article's author makes plenty of important points about how the current criminal justice system is broken, most rapists and murderers are still out on the street, and how income inequality and other systemic injustices are huge factors in why violent crimes occur... but it's not until the very end of the article that I found some proposed alternatives: "Imagine a survivor whose version of accountability looks like trauma treatment and alcohol addiction treatment for their abuser instead of jail. For a family whose loved one was murdered, imagine the person who harmed them was required to help support them financially while they adjust and heal. Imagine folks who are trained in violence intervention strategies called to intervene in volatile situations, and resolving the issue both immediately and over time. Imagine properly funded anti racist or anti gender based violence community programs that can regularly engage with people who have engaged in abusive behavior or folks with racist beliefs in group and individual settings over long periods of time." I appreciate that they lay out all their critiques of the status quo - I think they do a fine job arguing that a lot needs to change about our current system. I think some political abolitionists may believe that if they were to accept the premise that some criminals can't be rehabilitated - that even if it's just the hypothetical worst of the worst, rarest 0.0001% outliers who need to be isolated from society - then their entire position might be in jeopardy, so I'm not particularly surprised if they act cagey when it comes to violent criminals. Taking the "okay fine, prison as a very last resort" position completely off the table just isn't going to be satisfying for a lot of people though, and there are so many helpful intermediary steps our society could still take without needing to be sold on literally zero incarcerations.
Did you really linked this excuse of an article???
" To ask “what will we do about the rapists and murderers” implies that rapists and murderers primarily make up the 2.3 million people currently incarcerated, not inclusive of people impacted by mandates, probation, parole, and e-carceration." - No it doesnt imply anything like that - it specifically ask about rapists and murderers
"The underlying implication is that prison is a place where dangerous people go to be held accountable for their poor choices" - it is not implication it is a fact
"Prison is not a place for bad people" - by the very definition it is, and if not is it place for good people?
"In the U.S., prison is an invention of white supremacist capitalism." - this translates to " i dont know history, or even what the words I use mean"
Then you have bunch of paragraphs saying essentialy: so little rapists and murderers go to prison, whats the point then.
"Again, the question “what about the murderers” ignores the fact that police and prisons are the murderers. ⅓ of all stranger murders are committed by police" - sure because every time police kills someone it is a murder.
"Murder is avoidable" - just have this weird feeling that not incarcerating murderers would very much increased number of murders.
"What good does it do a survivor for the state to spend endless amounts of money incarcerating their abuser if they are still unable to heal because they don’t have access to mental health resources, stable income, and shelter? " - Their abuser wouldnt be abusing them anymore, seems kinda obvious to me.
"Native and indigenous communities have functioned for centuries without the carceral system" - only small ones where every person was essential to survival, and everyone in the tribe new what they did.
"The Navajo Nation’s peacemaking process is an extremely popular model." - as in where entire family bore the financial and social responsibility of the crime, well... that seems enticing.
I can go on, but the author is simply deranged. Like, I am genuinely surprised that anyone would chose this article for anything.
|
United States44247 Posts
On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs.
You're not passing.
|
On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Show nested quote +Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics?
Essentially this means:
Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency.
|
On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency.
Mind walking us through how you got from A to 6?
|
On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs.
The Republicans/camp being negligent is not the same thing as a place of worship being targeted by a bigoted attack, and yes obviously being atheist doesn't automatically mean one is anti-theist / anti-religious.
|
On June 25 2026 09:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 06:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 04:45 LightSpectra wrote:
She could have answered the question better. But it's perhaps a success in drawing attention to the fact that even if a very small number of criminals are utterly irredeemable (which is controversial), the vast majority aren't. There's no reason why America shouldn't adopt a much more humane rehabilitation system like they have in Denmark that results in significantly less recidivism. If she simply said "yes, I still think serial murderers should be imprisoned" then we wouldn't even be talking about this at all. I'm not so sure that all publicity is good publicity, but I'm with you that our prison system needs to be significantly reformed and that we can emulate other countries that do it so much better than we do. Happy birthday, btw! On June 25 2026 05:37 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 04:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 03:56 Introvert wrote:On June 25 2026 03:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 03:35 Introvert wrote:
She's the prison abolitionist who refused to say murderers should be locked up? Bonkers. Also as is normal the person with socialist in their platform did better in the richer areas, because of course. Would you mind posting the entire cited quote or video clip that this is from, so that we could see/hear the exact words and surrounding context? https://nyeditorialboard.substack.com/p/darializa-avila-chevalier-on-housing
Nicole Gelinas
Just speaking of human rights and human dignity, you’ve been a prison abolitionist, a decarceralist. What should happen to somebody who has killed somebody else? I mean, I went to a sentencing last week, a man killed another man, didn’t know the person, just sitting on a stoop, got a 18-year prison sentence. Should that person not go to prison? And what should happen instead?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
So, you know, for prison abolitionists, I think a lot of folks misunderstand what that vision of the world actually is. And it is one that actually centers this question of harm. At the heart of what we’re asking is: What, why is it that there is so much harm in our society?
And how do we, A, prevent it, and B, deal with it when it happens. And as someone who has worked with folks who have been incarcerated, who have felt ostracized, for lack of a better term, by so many facets of our society for being poor, for being Black, for being Latino. I work at a public defender’s office where most of our clients are incredibly poor Black and brown New Yorkers. And for so many, the crimes that they’re being indicted for are crimes of poverty, or the effects of poverty.
And when I think about this question of harm, I think how do we create a society where people feel so safe that they don’t need to pick up the phone and call the police. And when harm does happen, how do we actually create repair? Because what we have right now is a system in whenever harm happens, there’s more harm being perpetrated, not only on the folks who engaged in the harm, but also on the victims of the harm. I’m someone who has actually been the victim of crimes, of violence, and gone to the police as a young person thinking, doing the thing that society told me to do, and all that did was traumatize me more.
Josh Greenman
But what do you do to the murderer though? Or what do you do—
Darializa Avila Chevalier
But and so I’m trying to answer the question, which is that— What we do is that we then put people behind bars in incredibly traumatizing conditions in a context where they cannot actually reflect on the harm that they caused or feel any remorse on that because they’re just trying to survive inside, and they’re being re-traumatized day after day after day while inside. And then when they’re released, they’re bringing that trauma back to our community, and that is having a reverberating effect on everyone in our society. And so as an abolitionist, you know, when you think about this question of harm, we have to think not only about interrupting that cycle of harm but also preventing it from the onset. And part of that has to do with thinking about, what are the systems that actually reduce that harm from happening in the first place?
And I have spoken to clients at public defender’s office where you hear the larger story of what happened, and it was folks who were under so much stress from the conditions that they were facing that they lashed out in a way that was out of character, in ways that they deeply regret. They don’t have a way to actually repair now because they don’t have a pathway towards that. You see folks who just need access to medical care. I had, at one of the jobs I had many years ago, a client who would actually intentionally get arrested because being on Rikers was the only way that he could get access to his bipolar medication. And this is a reflection of a larger failure of our system to actually protect our people from harm, to think about harm in a more expansive way, and actually address it meaningfully and effectively.
Josh Greenman
But, did we answer what happens to the murderer? Do you not incarcerate the murderer?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
You know, again, I’m talking about this question between the distance between the world we want to see and the world that we’re at. And tomorrow, you know, when that instance happens, that [incarceration] is what’s going to happen, right? And I don’t think anyone in society questions that that’s what’s going to happen.
Ben Smith
But can you get a little less abstract? Like she was watching a jury vote on the guy’s guilty, should he be sentenced or not?
Darializa Avila Chevalier
Well, this is what I’m saying is that when that happens, and as someone who has sat in so many courtrooms, to me, all of that is tragic. The fact that the murder happened is tragic. The fact that there was a circumstance in which that could even come to pass is tragic, and all of that is a reflection of systems that allowed that circumstance to be possible. And so, you know, I have always focused my attention on how do we create systems where that’s not even the possibility.
As a bonus it appears she wants no one to ever be deported for any reason and wants everyone to vote including non-citizens. Thanks for posting the interview. I don't think she did the Prison Abolition movement any favors there. I feel like she could have still stressed the importance of gradually reducing prison populations and eventually replacing jails with proper rehabiliation centers / whatever her specific vision is, without completely dodging the question about murderers. Her dodges make her position seem very incomplete. I'm going to agree with you here. I don't even know if she's thought about phasing in her program, or if she actually has an answer to hardened criminals/repeat criminals. Prison abolitionists have to answer whether all prisons are gone, who still goes to prison if any, and what about recidivism within non-prison alternatives. I'm not interested if she thinks 40 years from now violent crime is at 10% of today because we've done such a bang-up job of fixing root causes. Yeah definitely. Her lack of an answer regarding murderers made me curious as to what other prison abolitionists might say about what to do with violent criminals. I found this article from another political abolitionist, where the author starts with their stated goal: "The most common question posed to abolitionists is “what about the rapists and murderers?” Most people are not satisfied with the answer they receive. This article is an attempt to break this question down further from my perspective as an abolitionist." https://transformharm.org/ab_resource/what-about-the-rapists-and-murderers/ I feel like most people who pose the question are just generally looking for an acknowledgement that dangerous people need to (at least temporarily) be removed from society, and the author above seems to struggle with immediately making that acknowledgement alongside promoting rehabilitation, just like how Chevalier struggled in her interview. The article's author makes plenty of important points about how the current criminal justice system is broken, most rapists and murderers are still out on the street, and how income inequality and other systemic injustices are huge factors in why violent crimes occur... but it's not until the very end of the article that I found some proposed alternatives: "Imagine a survivor whose version of accountability looks like trauma treatment and alcohol addiction treatment for their abuser instead of jail. For a family whose loved one was murdered, imagine the person who harmed them was required to help support them financially while they adjust and heal. Imagine folks who are trained in violence intervention strategies called to intervene in volatile situations, and resolving the issue both immediately and over time. Imagine properly funded anti racist or anti gender based violence community programs that can regularly engage with people who have engaged in abusive behavior or folks with racist beliefs in group and individual settings over long periods of time." I appreciate that they lay out all their critiques of the status quo - I think they do a fine job arguing that a lot needs to change about our current system. I think some prison abolitionists may believe that if they were to accept the premise that some criminals can't be rehabilitated - that even if it's just the hypothetical worst of the worst, rarest 0.0001% outliers who need to be isolated from society - then their entire position might be in jeopardy, so I'm not particularly surprised if they act cagey when it comes to violent criminals. Taking the "okay fine, prison as a very last resort" position completely off the table just isn't going to be satisfying for a lot of people though, and there are so many helpful intermediary steps our society could still take without needing to be sold on literally zero incarcerations. Did you really linked this excuse of an article??? " To ask “what will we do about the rapists and murderers” implies that rapists and murderers primarily make up the 2.3 million people currently incarcerated, not inclusive of people impacted by mandates, probation, parole, and e-carceration." - No it doesnt imply anything like that - it specifically ask about rapists and murderers "The underlying implication is that prison is a place where dangerous people go to be held accountable for their poor choices" - it is not implication it is a fact "Prison is not a place for bad people" - by the very definition it is, and if not is it place for good people? "In the U.S., prison is an invention of white supremacist capitalism." - this translates to " i dont know history, or even what the words I use mean" Then you have bunch of paragraphs saying essentialy: so little rapists and murderers go to prison, whats the point then. "Again, the question “what about the murderers” ignores the fact that police and prisons are the murderers. ⅓ of all stranger murders are committed by police" - sure because every time police kills someone it is a murder. "Murder is avoidable" - just have this weird feeling that not incarcerating murderers would very much increased number of murders. "What good does it do a survivor for the state to spend endless amounts of money incarcerating their abuser if they are still unable to heal because they don’t have access to mental health resources, stable income, and shelter? " - Their abuser wouldnt be abusing them anymore, seems kinda obvious to me. "Native and indigenous communities have functioned for centuries without the carceral system" - only small ones where every person was essential to survival, and everyone in the tribe new what they did. "The Navajo Nation’s peacemaking process is an extremely popular model." - as in where entire family bore the financial and social responsibility of the crime, well... that seems enticing. I can go on, but the author is simply deranged. Like, I am genuinely surprised that anyone would chose this article for anything.
..............Who are you talking to? Did you read why I posted it? I wasn't defending this article or its author. I was just trying to find a 2nd prison abolitionist and see what their response was to the question "What do we do with the murderers", and this response was similarly dodgy, lacking, and unconvincing. You completely wasted your time.
|
On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026:
The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait
The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028.
(If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now)
Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1353 Posts
On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs.
At the same time, you can appreciate that there is a certain irony of people of a faith who's canon feature a great flood, not being prepared for floods.... without that being a desecration of their beliefs.
Being an atheist that doesn't hate religion doesn't mean you never get to laugh at religious people for their religious beliefs. You can treat them like any other idea or deeply held belief. Religious ideas aren't some special class of ideas you can never discuss or critisize, they are just ideas.
The same way critisizing the actions of Israel (or even jews) isn't necessarily anti-semiticism.
|
On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens.
bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default.
Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists.
Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people.
Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt.
Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party.
|
On June 25 2026 09:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. You're not passing.
Elaborate ?
On June 25 2026 15:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. At the same time, you can appreciate that there is a certain irony of people of a faith who's canon feature a great flood, not being prepared for floods.... without that being a desecration of their beliefs. Being an atheist that doesn't hate religion doesn't mean you never get to laugh at religious people for their religious beliefs. You can treat them like any other idea or deeply held belief. Religious ideas aren't some special class of ideas you can never discuss or critisize, they are just ideas. The same way critisizing the actions of Israel (or even jews) isn't necessarily anti-semiticism.
Maybe I read special type of irony the wrong way. As in, like it was showing delight.
When you have super conservative acquaintances (mostly older generations) you know they're susceptible to stress caused by other worldviews.
|
On June 25 2026 19:09 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 09:38 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. You're not passing. Elaborate ? Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 15:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. At the same time, you can appreciate that there is a certain irony of people of a faith who's canon feature a great flood, not being prepared for floods.... without that being a desecration of their beliefs. Being an atheist that doesn't hate religion doesn't mean you never get to laugh at religious people for their religious beliefs. You can treat them like any other idea or deeply held belief. Religious ideas aren't some special class of ideas you can never discuss or critisize, they are just ideas. The same way critisizing the actions of Israel (or even jews) isn't necessarily anti-semiticism. Maybe I read special type of irony the wrong way. As in, like it was showing delight.
Oh. No. The flood is a classic destruction myth, especially well-known in Christianity from the Bible. That God would smite this Christian camp with a flood / That Christians wouldn't prepare against the potential of a flood, is some kind of irony, I think, but that's not the same thing as saying it's delightful.
|
On June 25 2026 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 19:09 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 09:38 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. You're not passing. Elaborate ? On June 25 2026 15:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 00:17 LightSpectra wrote:
Speaking of owning the libs. Camp Mystic, the Texas nondenominational Christian summer camp where 28 people died in a flood last year because Kerr County Republicans declined an updated flood warning & monitoring system paid for by the Democrat-passed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, just filed for bankruptcy. They reportedly already had kids enrolled for a program this year. Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. At the same time, you can appreciate that there is a certain irony of people of a faith who's canon feature a great flood, not being prepared for floods.... without that being a desecration of their beliefs. Being an atheist that doesn't hate religion doesn't mean you never get to laugh at religious people for their religious beliefs. You can treat them like any other idea or deeply held belief. Religious ideas aren't some special class of ideas you can never discuss or critisize, they are just ideas. The same way critisizing the actions of Israel (or even jews) isn't necessarily anti-semiticism. Maybe I read special type of irony the wrong way. As in, like it was showing delight. Oh. No. The flood is a classic destruction myth, especially well-known in Christianity from the Bible. That God would smite this Christian camp with a flood / That Christians wouldn't prepare against the potential of a flood is some kind of irony, I think, but that's not the same thing as saying it's delightful.
Fine, I read it wrong then and got a bit snappy.
The floods nowadays are also watery, but not exactly water. Not algae-free either.
|
On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party.
Republicans said Clinton, Obama, and Biden were socialists too. Insisted it over and over again. Now that they've accidentally associated those brief times of stability (and really, anything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport) as being "socialist", you think it's going to make a huge difference if a Democrat calls themself a socialist? Sounds like y'all cried wolf one times too many.
|
Afaik calling Democrats/Liberals "communist/socialist" predates Clinton by decades in the US. About time democrats endorce it just to depower the talking point, it never mattered that they obviously weren't anything remotely socialist/communist.
|
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party.
It’s quite difficult to make the ‘I am different’ argument in a party full of people who’ve effectively left Trump to do whatever he wants.
In terms of terms, I’d say Trump’s second term is worse than the first. The party and wider conservative media sphere has been less challenging of Trump, allied to governance in terms of policy, execution and corruption generally being worse. No longer do we have ‘well at least we haven’t got embroiled in wars’ to hang a hat on.
Who are the likeable or competent GOP heavyweights who aren’t going to be tarnished by association with this Trump term? That could be a realistic Presidential candidate? I’m sure some exist but there can’t be that many.
It’s quite a tricky act to pull off to pull the ‘I’m different card’ after largely pulling punches and letting the guy you’re trying to distance yourself from do their thing.
Labour in the UK were able to pull this off when Corbyn came in, then got replaced by Starmer, and possibly can with the likely Burnham ascension because all these individuals had a track record of both having different politics to their predecessors, but also vocalising their criticisms publicly too. The GOP don’t appear to have many waiting in the wings with a Presidential shot who’ve been doing that.
Equally it confuses me that you’re saying ‘anti-Trump’ isn’t a resonant position, but that the GOP candidate will try to distance themselves from Trump. Why the latter if the former isn’t such a factor. I mean having your ONLY position as anti-Trump obviously isn’t very inspiring, and won’t carry, which I assume you mean.
A lot can change in a couple of years too. I’d say it’s very much the Dems to lose, a pretty safe centrist ‘big hitter’ who’s reasonably charismatic should carry the day, unless Trump’s second term flips into endless political wins, or a truly exceptional GOP politician emerges
|
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On June 25 2026 19:56 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 19:09 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 09:38 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. You're not passing. Elaborate ? On June 25 2026 15:23 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On June 25 2026 09:24 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2026 07:18 KwarK wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 Simberto wrote:On June 25 2026 02:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 01:56 Acrofales wrote:On June 25 2026 01:50 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Obviously people enrolled their children there, because that is the safest place to put your children. It is statistically extremely unlikely that a bunch of children would drown there in two subsequent years. That... doesn't hold up to actual probability theory. Unless the flood caused them to change things (like move their campsite to somewhere less likely to flood), the chance of it flooding again this year is exactly as high as it flooding last year. This is what causes people to build their homes near rivers with the excuse that the "once in a generation" flood happened two years ago, so that means they're safe for a generation... Agreed. I assumed that Simberto was being sarcastic, since obviously thoughts and prayers and partisan stubbornness are all notoriously terrible at accomplishing anything. Also, there is a special type of irony attached to a Christian camp being unprepared for a devastating flood. Yes, i was joking there. I just kind of find bad math to be funny. I liked it. Christian camp unprepared for flood isn‘t really something I find entertaining, much like I don‘t find it entertaining when mosques or synagogues get targeted deliberately. You can be atheist without being straight up anti-religious or taking delight in the desecration of beliefs. At the same time, you can appreciate that there is a certain irony of people of a faith who's canon feature a great flood, not being prepared for floods.... without that being a desecration of their beliefs. Being an atheist that doesn't hate religion doesn't mean you never get to laugh at religious people for their religious beliefs. You can treat them like any other idea or deeply held belief. Religious ideas aren't some special class of ideas you can never discuss or critisize, they are just ideas. The same way critisizing the actions of Israel (or even jews) isn't necessarily anti-semiticism. Maybe I read special type of irony the wrong way. As in, like it was showing delight. Oh. No. The flood is a classic destruction myth, especially well-known in Christianity from the Bible. That God would smite this Christian camp with a flood / That Christians wouldn't prepare against the potential of a flood is some kind of irony, I think, but that's not the same thing as saying it's delightful. Fine, I read it wrong then and got a bit snappy. The floods nowadays are also watery, but not exactly water. Not algae-free either.
Presumably you’re not a native English speaker, so pretty understandable there’s a misunderstanding of a specific bit of phraseology!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
