You post like some kid who's Marxist/Randroid phase just seems to go on forever.

>>
>>Democrats were out there saying to watch out for the supreme
>>court. The 2016 winner was gonna get two or possibly even
>>three picks for the supreme court. Turns out it was 3. We
>said
>>it was gonna upend every damn thing. Lo and behold, it's
>>upended every damn thing.
>
>
>The GOP straight up said they would not approve any of
>Hillary's appointments. When everyone thought she had it in
>the bag, GOP came out with shit like "8 is a good number"

Yeah? So?

In 2018 we won back the Senate (and we would have done so with Hillary in office, too). If the GOP Senate had continued to hold up that nomination for two more years, and then the one to replace Kennedy, then obviously Schumer's senate would have ended the filibuster against supreme court nominees. Yes, we would have gotten those seats filled.


>If Hillary wins, the GOP would still be on some fuck shit. In
>this alternate reality where Hillary wins, she still doesn't
>get to nominate.
>
>GOP blocks. Breyer doesn't retire. Etc.
>
>I know you love to look down on people and feel smarter, but
>you are wrong.


I'm not smarter than you, but you are being pretty dumb. You really should try to challenge your own assumptions SOMETIMES. Pause once in a while from your obsession with blaming each of the world's problems on the only progressive coalition that has ever had political power in this country, to try and get your head around how the machinery of government actually works!



>Yeah people should have held their nose and voted. But voters
>are no more to blame than RBG's ego, Obama's miscalculation on
>Garland, and Biden/Democrat unwillingness to be bold in the
>face of bold times.


Blah. You sound like you're imagining a movie script in your head. If you "go bold" when strategy requires being defensive, you lose. The Democratic party, and the whole progressive movement in the US, is built around a loose, barely coherent coalition. We will always have to be defensive to hold our shit together.

FDR went "bold" with the New Deal then he was forced to severely pull it back, then nearly gave up altogether until a world war intervened and handled the politics for him. LBJ was only able to go "bold" after gaining power by a political assassination. And then he was still forced out by his own coalition. Progressives don't go "bold" in the US because it doesn't work for progressives to go "bold" in the US.


>Joe Biden is still waxing poetic about working with Thurmond.
>Dude is not built for these fights.
>
>>
>>If more "progressives" had been willing to vote for the
>lesser
>>evil in 2016, *they'd* have been the ones with a 6-3
>majority
>>in the courts by now.
>
>Bullshit. See above.

I did. You had some kind of cartoon going on.


>Voting Rights Act, Roe v Wade,
>>affirmative action, gun regulation, gerrymandering, campaign
>>finance, ... the world would be a completely different
>place.
>>
>>
>>Presidents don't make laws in the 21st century. They make
>>appointments.
>>
>>
>
>Even if I bought your premise- which is just built as a way to
>continuously rehash 2016 and predictably let Democrats off the
>hook for doing anything- it doesn't solve shit.
>
>It doesn't address the issue.
>
>
>Which is...right today....knowing we can't go back in
>time....what is the plan from the "lesser evil" party to
>address these things?

The same as it always is: boring, minor, incremental change, mostly by standing in the way of Republicans' proven ability to make things worse. Slowly make the case to more and more people. Force occasional compromises as they did with the IRA, with student loans, with continual progress on medicaid expansion and other elements of the ACA.

The machinery of government is not a comic book and the President is not a goddamn superhero. If you're old enough to vote, you're supposed to be mature enough to recognize that.


>IF Biden and Dems are powerless to address this, why bother?

You mean the Alabama state supreme court decision? It really is outside the realm of Federal executive authority. But the courts will weigh in in due time. You know who's probably up next to be replaced on the highest court in the land? Clarence Thomas. Then Sam Alito. If regular voters who claim to care about these things can be a little more sober in the next decade than they were in the last, then eventually we'll have a more sensible court. Joe Biden can't do it for us, because nobody can do it for us. Grow the fuck up.