LaMouffette
LaMouffette's JournalI posted this in response to a thread, but this news about light antitank weapons gave me a boost,
so I thought I would post it on its own in hopes of giving others some encouraging news:
The British have sent thousands of light, antitank weapons to Ukraine. These are portable weapons that individual Ukrainians can, and are, using to blast the shit out of the Russians' tanks.
British-provided 'one shot one kill' missiles are helping Ukrainians punch holes in Russian armor
The NLAW anti-tank missiles provided to Ukraine by the UK is proving itself in fighting around Ukraine.
The portable, shoulder-fired missile is easy to use and has earned praise from Ukrainian troops.
British-provided NLAW anti-tank system turning the tide in Ukraine — Scrappy NLAW anti-tank missiles have the punch to eliminate Russian tanks.
The Next Generation Light Antitank Weapon (NLAW) was provided by the British before the war in January. The Ukrainians are setting up counter-attacks and ambushes in the suburbs of Kyiv on Russian armored columns using the NLAW. The NLAW system is proving its mettle.
Since the NLAWs came over before the war started, they were able to be distributed widely to soldiers, and the Ukrainians are taking the initiative to blast Russian armor.
[link:https://www.businessinsider.com/british-provided-nlaw-missiles-help-ukraine-destroy-russian-armor-2022-3|
I can so see these weapons as being especially effective in the hands of the courageous and determined Ukrainians. And thank you, Great Britain!
The only thing we have to fear is [Republican voters'] fear itself. Great Vox article on clashing
worldviews of Republican and Democratic voters.
In short, the Vox article (from December 2018) describes how Republican voters view the world as a scary place and see societal changes as highly threatening. Democrats see the world as safer and are not as threatened by societal changes, such as the changing demographics in the US.
Our political divisions aren’t red versus blue, but fixed versus fluid.
“Of the many factors that make up your worldview, one is more fundamental than any other in determining which side of the divide you gravitate toward: your perception of how dangerous the world is. Fear is perhaps our most primal instinct, after all, so it’s only logical that people’s level of fearfulness informs their outlook on life.”
That’s political scientists Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, writing in their book Prius or Pickup, which marshals a massive trove of survey data and experimental evidence to argue that the roots of our political divides run so deep that they make us almost incomprehensible to one another. Our political divisions, they say, aren’t about policy disagreements, or even demographics. They’re about something more ancient in how we view the world. . . .
The ideological conflict that used to divide the parties was the size of government. The Democrats said bigger, the Republicans said smaller. Importantly, most Americans didn’t have intense commitments on this question. In addition, party elites could compromise across it. Hence, the political conflict spawned by it wasn’t rancorous most of the time.
That changed in the late 20th century, accelerating into the present day. The dividing line between the parties was no longer a philosophy about governing (a political ideology — more or less government). It evolved into differences in philosophy about life (a worldview — is the world a basically safe place to explore, or is it a dangerous snake pit to hunker down against).
If you think the world is dangerous, safety is always the No. 1 concern. When it comes to physical safety, letting your guard down against adversaries could be disastrous. If you think the world is safe, however, discriminating against groups that have generally been down the racial, gender, or sexual orientation hierarchy is the real sin.
The article goes on to explain why Republicans are so susceptible to right-wing propaganda and hate mongering:
The most likely reason would be a differential need for what psychologists call cognitive closure. Those we consider having fixed worldviews have a greater need for closure which suggests a greater need to avoid cognitive dissonance. They therefore are more likely to believe information that confirms their worldview. These differences may drive the supply of misinformation coming from political elites to some degree.
What’s for certain is that those who hate their opponents will be more willing to believe the worst about them. And Republican leaders have been bolder about exploiting that hatred of the other side than Democratic leaders have.
The article is not very optimistic about combatting Republican politicians' manipulation of their voters' fear, anger, and hatred, but suggests:
Long article, but worth the read:
[link:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/18/18139556/republicans-democrats-partisanship-ideology-philosophy-psychology-marc-hetherington|
Thank you for the hearts, fellow DU members! I'm so glad to have found this community!
I would love to see President Biden nominate Anita Hill to the Supreme Court, just to see Clarence
Thomas crap his robe.
How about in addition to a massive GOTV campaign, we Dems conduct state audits of our own?
These would be "Democracy Audits," highly publicized audits to clearly demonstrate where each state government stands as far as their ability to represent the will of their people and to protect the right to vote for all the citizens of their state.
They would be graded on such things as gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and even on the sources of campaign donations for each of their Senators and Representatives.
The states would be ranked from most democratic to least. I'm sure we can predict how that would look already, but the whole point would be to make a big stink about it so that it makes the news over the course of the months leading up to the November elections.
Would this make Republicans in office wake up and say, "Oh my God! You're right! We've been soooo unfair! Let's fix things!"
Of course not! The whole purpose of the Democracy Audits campaign would be publicity. To rip the curtain back in a big way that gets covered by the mainstream media with the same furor with which the Cyber Ninja voter fraud audits in Arizona got covered.
Anyway, just throwin' an idea out there.
A horrifying thought: Even if we succeed in getting TFG and his minions locked up, the next Repub
president will likely pardon them all.
What, if anything, can be done to remove the limitless power of the presidential pardon before they retake the presidency?
"Republicans Lie, Democracy Dies!" "Republicans Lie, Democracy Dies!" "Republicans Lie, Democracy...
Dies!" (repeat a million times).
I tuned in to Sean Hannity's show the night after the Jan. 6 Committee sent him their letter requesting information he might have that could further their investigation. I just wanted to see if he looked the tiniest bit rattled. He didn't, of course. He's a smoothie, that one.
But in the five minutes that I could stomach of his show, he repeated the same phrase over and over: "Blah, blah, blah, OPERATION WARP SPEED, blah, blah, OPERATION WARP SPEED, blah blah." He threw in "Joe Biden's failed Covid response!" a few times, too.
It was just striking how many times he repeated these catchphrases. And think of how many times "Stop the Steal!" has been bleated by the Repubs.
That's just one of their techniques they use to brainwash/hypnotize their cult members. It's time for some counter-programming: "Republicans lie, Democracy dies!" is just one possible catchphrase that Dems can start repeating.
I know it's not our MO to use propaganda techniques, but it may be what it takes to lure their followers away from the dark side.
WWRD (What Would Republicans Do) about the Electoral College if it put them at a disadvantage?
Probably something technically legal, but a complete affront to the spirit of democracy, because that's who they are and that's what they do.
So let's not do that. But we need to do something to abolish, or do an end run around, the Electoral College. Something that is not only legal and democratic, but POSSIBLE. We have to do something that does not entail amending the Constitution. That would be impossible, given the fact that Republicans and Republican-controlled state legislatures think the Electoral College works just fine the way it is right now, thank you very much!
Here are just a couple of ideas described in a Brookings Institute article from December 2020. It's a long article, but worth the read. Here is the link:
[link:https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/12/09/how-to-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/|
And an excerpt:
". . . A constitutional amendment is not the only means by which an alternative to the current Electoral College can be implemented. The most popular alternative is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Started in the mid-2000s, the NPVIC is a fairly straightforward system that capitalizes on the constitutional guarantee that states are free to determine the manner in which they award their electoral votes. The compact requires states to pass laws that would award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. Under the current plan, states that join will not activate the compact until enough states have joined to total 270 electoral votes. That is, the compact does not go into effect until there is a critical mass of states for it to be effective.
Currently, 15 states and DC have approved the NPVIC. These states currently total 196 electoral votes, although after the 2020 census is completed, projections suggest a net loss of two seats, lowering that number to 194. Each of those states has Democratic control of the state legislature. If the remaining states with Democratic control of the legislature (Maine, Nevada, and Virginia) were to sign on, it would add an additional 23 Electoral College votes.[2] The compact would then be 43 Electoral College votes short of going into effect. It should be noted, there is debate about the permissibility of such a proposal and its going into effect would likely face a flurry of lawsuits. Nonetheless, it is likely the most viable alternative to the current Electoral College system.
Alternatives to winner-take-all
As discussed above, the only practical way of ending the Electoral College is by changing the ways in which states use the popular vote to award electors to the presidential candidates. In addition to the NPVIC discussed above, there are two variations on this theme that could reduce the odds that someone could win the presidency without winning the national popular vote.
In the first instance, states could decide to award 2 Electoral College votes (EVs) to the winner of the national popular vote (NPV) and the remainder to the winner of the state. That means that the national winner would start out with 102 Electoral College votes. In most cases this should prevent the popular vote loser from becoming president. For instance, if a hotly contested state like Wisconsin broke for the candidate who lost the popular vote, eight of its ten electoral votes would be added to their tally. The following table shows how this would have changed the outcome in the two contested elections of the 21st century and includes 2004 for comparison.
Oh my god. I just realized that Repub politicians not only want the pandemic to continue in general,
since that will make Biden look bad, but it seems to me that they also specifically want their own constituents to lose loved ones to Covid because they know that they, the Republican politicians, will be able to direct their grieving voters' anger against Biden and the Dems.
The rising surge in Covid deaths, especially among Republican Americans, is good news for the GOP. The more deaths, the more outrage, which is how they get themselves elected. Before TFG, I wouldn't have thought them capable of such cruel cynicism, but now, I wonder.
They must be banking on enough of their constituents not dying of Covid to still get elected, with the added insurance of voter suppression bills and their efforts to make it possible for Republican-controlled state legislatures to toss out voting results that do not favor Republican candidates.
Yikes.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jan 23, 2020, 03:36 PMNumber of posts: 2,042
