• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Wanting a restoration of the Republic is not playing Make-Believe

    Clinging to the mythology of the American system is.

    But within the rules of the government we have we could fix the government

    That’s been disproven repeatedly and categorically going at least back to Nixon. We’ve been repeating the cycle of Conservative Breaks Rules / Liberal Sweeps It Under The Rug for 50 years, easily.

    How many more generations plan to get Rope-a-Doped by toothless establishment hacks?

    It is just a matter of getting good leadership to get us there and organizing behind them.

    Who could you name that would qualify? Are we going to get a big name blue state prosecutor like checks notes Kamala Harris?

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t know what you think you are even arguing here. I know the system can work because it did work. In the post-war years until the 1970s. Only after business started to cooperate on a long game to undo the New Deal did it all go to shit. Piece by piece. In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.

      • Mike D.@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        That was over 50 years ago. The amount of fuckery that has happened would take another 50 years to undo assuming the Democrats were up to the task. They are not which is the reason things are so bleak today

        • hector@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          My point is we organize and take the dem party, strong leadership that can build and run a pol machine, we could get back there in 2029, assuming r’s are too busy infighting and too disenchanted to steal an election they clearly lost. All state level cheating still losing the election that is and congress and scotus not granting it to the loser anyway.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        In the post-war years until the 1970s.

        A famously great time to be an American, assuming you weren’t colored, Latino, LGBTQ, or a woman.

        In 1972 the business Round Table made a long game and it has since been refined.

        American corporate collaboration didn’t begin in 1972. You can trace it back to the antebellum era and the birth of American industrialization.

        The New Deal was a historical aberration that came through the rapid economic attrition of the Great Depression. Prior to the Depression of '32, Henry Ford, JP Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller were individually as powerful as any half dozen elected officials combined.

        • hector@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes anytime the new deal is brought up the detractors say that minorities were discriminated against, so, nothing they did counts. Defective logic, nothing anyone did ever would count using that logic.

          Give me one historical example where you could not find injustice to negate using an example from? Just one. Nothing now would count. Nothing in us history.

          Using that argument is telling of where your head is at, perhaps actively stymying resistance, to accelerate the decline mistakenly believing something better would replace it. That is the more charitable take on your use of that argument too.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            anytime the new deal is brought up

            The Pre-Nixon Era was defined by more than just the New Deal and the Great Society.

            to accelerate the decline mistakenly believing something better would replace it

            Understanding history is very different from advocating for “accelerationism”

            • hector@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Yet you do not indulge my question, give me one example that cannot be dismissed with your logic dismissing the new deal?

                • hector@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Lincoln did not even want emancipation at first, and grant was corrupt and let his admin loot the government, then abandoned reconstruction to jim crow in a deal to get to keep the 1876 election they stole from tillman for hayes.

                  That republican party? Hardly.

                  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Lincoln did not even want emancipation

                    Lincoln campaigned at the head of an abolitionist party on the platform of halting slavery expansion in the territories and gradually phasing it out nationwide.

                    After the civil war broke out, he saw rapid emancipation as a means of collapsing Confederate resistance. And in the immediate aftermath of the war, he was a full throated supporter of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

                    What you’re saying is categorically untrue.