25. "Nah, the supreme court would look different. " In response to Reply # 1
Trump got three placements. Hillary would have probably been able to get 2 through. ______________________________________________________________________________
28. "You think McConnell would have let that happen?" In response to Reply # 25
>Trump got three placements. Hillary would have probably been >able to get 2 through
Republicans had control of the Senate in 2016 (and 2018). McConnell would have let the court dwindle down to 2 justices before he allowed a democrat to appoint someone.
33. "If people would vote, McConnell would have been a nonfactor then" In response to Reply # 28
>>Trump got three placements. Hillary would have probably >been >>able to get 2 through > > >Republicans had control of the Senate in 2016 (and 2018). >McConnell would have let the court dwindle down to 2 justices >before he allowed a democrat to appoint someone.
and all of this wouldn't even be a concern, if people would get off their asses and vote.
Hell, if folks would've came out in 2000 in FL and made the margin too wide to steal (which they ultimately ended up doing in 2000 and was trying to do in 2020), we would still have an intact VRA.
~~~~~~~~ A bad Samaritan averaging above average men (c) DOOM
9. "the fact is every election is the most important election" In response to Reply # 5
of our lifetime.
republicans treat them as such and show up and vote in every election at all levels. which is why they are able to impose a political agenda in a country where the majority of people are against them.
dem/liberal voters like to mock people who appeal to the urgency of voting as if its just pandering. but we are still suffering far reaching consequences from an election people sat out 22 years ago. we are still digging out of political representation deficits from midterm blowouts 12 and 8 years ago. and the election 6 years ago most likely accelerated the most rapid and widespread rolling back of hard fought rights arguably in the history of this country and guaranteed it most likely wont be stopped while we are alive to see it.
a lot of people cant fathom the fact that even if you dont feel like youre gaining something...sitting out an election can and will lead to you losing something.
12. "if everything is a right then nothing is a right." In response to Reply # 11 Mon May-02-22 11:47 PM by Reeq
see how silly that sounds?
every election *is* an emergency when you have a political party and supreme court that are focused on relegating everybody but straight white christian men to second class citizenship.
every election could decide whether you still have the same rights you had yesterday. every election could be a matter of life and death (healthcare, pollution, poverty, etc). even for people who arent informed enough to realize it.
republicans have been voting religiously (literally and figuratively) for 50 years just to get to the point that we are at now. none of this only caring about the lack of personal immediacy of the current election. none of this bitching about uninspiring candidates. none of this downplaying the stakes of each election.
they played the long game by stressing the importance of every single short game.
which is what some people on the left have been trying to do but then we got niggas mocking shit like fundraising tactics.
14. "All of this right here" In response to Reply # 12
Could you imagine if people on the left were like this during the Civil Rights Movement?
I’m just going to sit out this next election because I don’t like Kennedy because he is catholic, his family is shady and he is basically just like Nixon.
32. "Republican Voter turn out being higher isn't shocking" In response to Reply # 12
since nobody is actively attempting to disenfranchise/gerrymander Republican Voters.
The other end of that equation is that the candidates elected by those Republican voters go out and actively work to do the things their voters want (as long as it's not something that will cost their donors money). This entire time they've been finding ways to chip away at reproductive rights and other regressive policies at local/state/federal levels. They actually use that power to accomplish shit.
Even if they did nothing else, Democrats should be actively/loudly working to ensure the right to vote of their base if they want to maintain power. That's just terrible strategy.
The Obama Administration not replacing Scalia was terrible strategy
RBG not stepping down while Obama was in office was bad strategy.
I've voted straight democrat up and down the ballot in every election since I've been old enough to vote and plan on continuing to do so, but I honestly couldn't tell you what the long term goals/strategies of our elected leaders are other than continuing to make money.
You think if there were 2 Republican members of congress blocking Trump's agenda him and his supporters wouldn't be on TV constantly calling for their blood?
Do you know how easy it SHOULD be to make the Republican Party look like a toxic choice, especially after a failed coup attempt?
If you're constantly getting out worked/out smarted/out messaged by your opposition, you're either terrible at your job or complicit.
R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Mon May-02-22 10:25 PM
6. "Is it painful to be so naive?" In response to Reply # 2
How does any of that shit get done in a 50/50 senate with a guy from West Virginia whose whole brand is about obstructing his own party? How many more GOP senators do you need before you're willing to blame them and their voters for what they've so gleefully done?
Your whataboutism is tired, silly, irrelevant, and productive only in being counterproductive.
8. "basically this. only way anything of consequence gets done is w/ filibus..." In response to Reply # 6
abolished, and that simply will not happen with manchin and sinema.
but email lady, as president, would have at least gotten some nominees, and we wouldn't have had the fuckery of shitler to undo, although a progressive majority would have still been a heavy lift.
========================================= I'm an advocate for working smarter, not harder. If you just focus on working hard you end up making someone else rich and not having much to show for it. (c) mad
10. "All elections are important to win. Dems or the GOP don’t get everythi..." In response to Reply # 2
They want by simply winning one election. You have to build over time to achieve your goal, which means you have to show up and win as many elections as you can. Even the boring mid term ones or the ones where your candidate isn’t the most progressive or charismatic and gives you the warm and fuzzies.
50 senators isn’t a super majority, it is the smallest majority one can get so thinking any major reform like SCOTUS expansion or an abortion protection law passed with a coalition of 46 Dems, 2 independents, 1 libertarian, and one purple Dem senator is setting yourself up for disappointment.
64. "you see the replies in here though" In response to Reply # 16
Dudes would rather critique an election 6 years ago and Jacobin articles then the people who are actually in power.
Me even suggesting they fight back the fascists by at least trying some shit (investigating BART, court reform, etc) is crazy talk to people.
GOP stole this court. Members of the GOP participated in an attack on the capital. GOP rolling back voting rights across the country.
etc
And the Biden admin would rather only talk about pot holes and unemployment.
And worse than that, you have dudes in here urgently rushing to defend people in power who clearly don't give two shits about them.
The first year of the Biden admin may have been the last chance to actually fight back...but Democrats turned the page. And the usual suspects rush in here to defend them.
Working to get democrats elected then refusing to expect anything of them other than "not being GOP" has absolutely contributed to this bullshit.
73. "The dems have had 50 years to codify roe v wade into law" In response to Reply # 64
the last two democratic presidents came into office with a supermajority for the first 2 years of their terms
They've convinced these apolitical white liberals and their negro pets that their only political responsibility is to be upset at what the republicans do and not actually do anything themselves
The Agent will be in here shortly with a 43684379437 word screed about how the midterms in Indiana in 2012 and 2026 are the key to this, and it's Bernie's fault.
Republicans are the Globetrotters, Dems are the Washington Generals.
The usual suspects came by to throw insults because I dared ask that Democrats at least try to use their power- I expected the replies from the usual cast.
I didn't expect it from you though. Especially like this.
why am I daft to point out Democrats have done nothing to address these issues in the past year or so?
Is it the Manchin Sinema thing? They are democrats, are they not? They are supported by the party, correct? Sinema was recently recruited for this, no?
Joe and Chuck have had plenty of time to get them on board. Why is the GOP a united front, but we can't expect Dems to be?
Why can't I criticize a party for not delivering or using their power? Especially when that party screamed "most important election of your lifetime" for the nth time.
So I'm daft for thinking they could have at least tried some stuff?
Or am I daft for expecting Democrats to start fighting back? To stop bringing consultants to a gun fight?
"If democrats are too bold, they lose" is something other bootlickers around here have said. Is this the kind of thinking you are referring to?
We wouldn't want Democrats to lose of course then something like Roe might be overtur...oh wait.
The typical Democrat Defenders are going to put this all on 2016. My point on it being irrelevant is that it is in the past.
We could also talk about Dems not codifying Roe in 2009.
Or hell not fighting more in 00.
But Dems are in power right now. And this half assed, pretend everything is normal usual Democrat bullshit is going to hand shit right back to the fascists and it will be so much worse.
There will be a smarter GOP candidate in 24. They will be emboldened. They will control elections across the states. They will control the media. They will control education. Etc.
Asking Democrats to at least try to prevent that is not daft. Asking them to act with the same urgency they displayed to get elected is not daft.
If you disagree on points fine but just dismissing me as daft is some bullshit, especially since I thought we've only had good interactions before. Maybe I'm forgetting something.
I'll say this though, I can't understand how everyone isn't tired of this.
GOP does evil shit
Dems point out all the evil, actually win back power
Dems do very little to actually address the issues. Anyone who points that out is yelled down about how much worse the GOP is.
Nothing really changes, allowing the GOP to do even more evil shit when they get power back.
We know the GOP is evil. We all know. How we all haven't seen that Dems clearly aren't going to do shit about it is beyond me.
88. "Im just a nigga on the internet thinking, damn what can I do to help" In response to Reply # 69 Tue May-03-22 08:17 PM by MEAT
It feels like the time to assign blame to a burning is after the fire is out It would also seem like the blame should 100% go on the arsonists and not the firefighters no matter how feckless they are Like their blame comes after. But right now the house is on fire and all I can think about is “what can I do”
------ “There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus
42. "Hillary was *the* sure fire way this 100% wouldn't happen" In response to Reply # 2
People can armchair the rest all they want.
Yes RBG fucked up.. yes Obama didn't fight hard enough for Garland because he assumed Trump wouldn't win, yes democrats in general kinda suck.. yes she wasn't a great candidate, and maybe her picks would have been less than stellar, but nevertheless this doesn't happen if people would have grown the fuck up and got off their 'emails', Jill stein, voting doesn't matter, Bernie or bust, "2 sides of the same coin" bullshit... and of course the media didn't spend years feeding on Trumps teet.. It's easy to talk about what should have been done after she lost, but that was the way...it was one of the biggest reasons people were screaming about the importance of her winning, and here we are. Kinda surprised it took this long
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Mon May-02-22 10:12 PM
4. ""Superprecedent, huh, Mr Kavanaugh?" In response to Reply # 0
Fucking rapist.
I honestly thought they were gonna go with some mealy-mouthed thing that 'officially' preserved Roe but watered it down to nothing.
But nope, it's right there in plain language. Good for them, I guess. They don't give a fuck about hiding it.
As much as we like to think something fundamental has changed in the last few years, the religious right is still the most dangerous, radical, authoritarian force in this country. GW Bush is as guilty as Trump.
13. "Every privacy right is affected by RvW being overturned" In response to Reply # 0
lol this is surreal. They've already put up iron barricades in front of the capitol building for the inevitable protestors in the morning.
(and they're overturning Casey too, - so access will be challenged in states that have access and no explicit fortification of that access in state law.
Contraceptive rights, Gay marriage, etc. Your expectation of privacy generally (already pretty eroded but still)
Very particularly - Lawrence vs Texas, and Griswold, the primogeniture)
------------------- I wanna go to where the martyrs went the brown figures on the walls of my apart-a-ment...
30. "As much I hold contempt against transgender women being " In response to Reply # 0 Tue May-03-22 09:31 AM by allStah
allowed to compete against biological women in girls sports, as well as being allowed to occupy public women’s restrooms, I do support gay rights.
A human being should be allowed to marry or be with the person they want to be with, as long as the courtship is consensual and legal. I have no qualms with that.
I am prochoice up until 2 months, unless there is some type of irregular physical or mental condition that would hurt the mother or child if the birth were to take place. Also, I do understand that certain circumstances and predicaments outside of health conditions may necessitate the need to have an abortion past the 2 month threshold, such as rape, enslavement, etc.
Peace.
ALL HAIL THE KING of LOSING: LEBRON Bulls | Bears | White Sox | Yankees | Notre Dame | Illinois | Chelsea | Real Madrid
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
31. "Republicans executed on a long game. " In response to Reply # 0
50 years in the working. Including coming up with the think tanks to produce the judicial philosophy, to attract the lawyers in law school, to guide them through the courts to get into position, to do what they did today.
Almost feels inevitable IF there weren't a plan to counteract it. Almost see like an obvious big miss for not making a Supreme Court decision a federal law.
We will spend a lot of times pointing fingers what went wrong but not really sure its helpful.
I think the best way forward is to really deal with the issue hands on and take it out of the hands of the Supreme Court. The truth is, they bought us time, but this is a decision that shouldn't have been up to them in the first place.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
90. "A guess - how about late-70s, early 80s?" In response to Reply # 36 Tue May-03-22 08:40 PM by Walleye
I'm certainly not saying this made the right any less racist, but supporting explicit, legal segregation probably transitioned from simply being a loser to being a political liability around that time. Opposition to busing probably gave that a few extra years, but by the early 80s the suburbs had instituted sufficient implicit segregation that they were kind of running out of fields for that battle anyhow. Point is, hating people who aren't white never went out of style but it's probably not really providing the specific wedge issue where everybody on your side is all the way fucking in for it and the other side maybe can be scared into not fighting.
Tearing down Roe vs. Wade checks a bunch of those boxes. Abortion restrictions are, like any punishment-based policy, going to harm disportionately poor women and women who aren't white. It offers a path to keep a lot of Catholics invested in the Republican Party at a time when the right's (extraordinarily successful) anti-union effort and maybe immigration patterns are risking that. It's an electoral strategy, but an extremely longterm one given its emphasis on the court, so you're not going to be accused of breaking your promises.
Anyhow, that's my guess. Filled a rhetorical void. I'll also add, without bothering to check, that maybe their first avenue of opposition wasn't the courts but a life-begins-conception amendment of some kind and maybe it took a few years for that to peter out. The idea of amending the constitution seems laughably remote right now given how narrow our congressional majorities have been lately, but it was a more realistic part of the political landscape in the 60s so it wouldn't surprise me if pro-lifers took a little while to learn the ERA people were finding out.
______________________________
"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"
Edit to summarize the roots for anybody without a sub/the time: Basically, it started as a small rebellion against increasingly liberal/progressive legal writing at University of Chicago, then Harvard and Yale in the early '80s and just happened to gain a shitload of momentum in the grass roots of the Reagan era and pretty quickly became the foundation of a fundamentalist conservative's interpretation of what the legal system was supposed to represent and more importantly could be capable of.
These days, pretty much any judge at any level of the courts with an (R) next to their name appointed since the mid-late '90s has been a Federalist Society member.
34. "This wasn't some Republican masterstroke....." In response to Reply # 0
Democrats fucked this up so spectacularly.....
Not getting RBG to retire was #1. RBG should have been gone before the 2014 midterms. They let that happen and then Scalia dies in an election year AND THEY CAN'T FILL THAT SEAT EITHER because they are weak as hell.
Obviously losing to Trump after that is a discussion that we don't need to have. No one wants to hear about doing the right thing. Hillary Clinton was a HORRIBLE candidate. The fact she lost to Trump tells you all you need to know.
Then RBG dies literally right before the 2020 election and Democrats let them ram in a justice.
I don't blame Republicans for what they did. If your back was against the wall you would do everything you could to keep power and it the opposing party is too weak messaged and mismanaged to stop you....then so be it.
43. "I do!!!" In response to Reply # 37 Tue May-03-22 11:11 AM by blueeclipse
I'm not saying I agree but I understand. They're not going to go quietly. Their pieces of shit but this is what happens when change happens and there are only two places to end up. Things turn ugly.
Democrats had them right where they wanted them!
Those Obama years really layed the groundwork for what could have been a generational swing.
Then they let Hillary Clinton run on some political mafia shit.
Name me another time in history where a 2 term President didn't get to hand the baton to their VP or a rising star?
Go watch that interview with Obama and Hillary when she stepped down. Obama wanted nothing to do with her.
Democrats got extremely lucky with Obama and at least Harry Reid was smart enough to see it for what it was and push for him to run. They didn't want to fuck with Hillary either.
Trump was actively torpedoing the party. The previous 15 years had culminated in this fucking clown being able to grift his way to the nomination while most of the party tried to back off of him.
No prominent Republican endorsed him until the 11th hour.
They thought he was going to lose even with Hillary fucking up.
They threw the email hail mary but Hillary not going to the mid west cooked her. She lost those states by such a slim margin.
But there was no momentum from Republicans as far as this being a united victory. Trump scorched every Republican candidate on the way up and continued to do so once he was elected.
They fall in line because they understand that they are only as strong as the sum.
53. "Perception > Reality" In response to Reply # 38
The Repubs have only won one popular vote since 88 Changing demographics in the country Black Man getting elected president Gay people and to a lesser extent Trans people getting rights/public dignity
it's not hard to convince them they're losing "Their" country
R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017
62. "it is unreal how little people around here expect from Dems" In response to Reply # 58
Un fucking real.
Folks want to go back in time and re-hash 2016...but not even question the people currently in power.
They want to go back to 16 to shit on mythical Bernie or bust voters...but not to 2009 when Obama had promised to codify Roe and didn't.
I suggested they at least try some shit up above (investigate BART for one) and I'm called naïve and wrong.
Democrats during election cycles point out how awful the other side is, they are coming for Roe, they are coming for voting rights, they are coming for gay marriage, etc etc.
We vote them in
And when someone points out they haven't even tried to address all the scary shit, they get called naïve.
Something something Manchin Sinema.
Manchin and Sinema are democrats!
Biden was supposed to be the deal maker.
These are unprecedented times. Stolen court. Attack on the capital. Attacks on voting rights, books, etc.
And if you suggest Dems fight back and act with the same urgency they asked for our votes, you get called naiive.
LOL. Raising campaign money off OkayPlayers is probably an easy gig.
47. "The million dollar democratic party answer to this is..." In response to Reply # 0
Unions!
Very big source of funds for the Democratic party before 1980 and Reagan's worker's rights seeking missiles. We must support all these unionization efforts. It will right these wrongs we keep seeing.
**Sig** -Blackthought is the dopest emcee alive -Uncle Sam and Santa Clause are good buddies. -Be selfless and the world will be a better place.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue May-03-22 11:40 AM
50. "well played Dems.. lol. The only way to get energized" In response to Reply # 0
is with a leak like this.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
80. "theres really no incentive for *dems* to leak it tho." In response to Reply # 50
sure its an offensive weapon for the midterms. but it would be the same offensive weapon when the court officially publishes the opinion soon anyway.
assuming that the judges line up the way they do in the leaked opinion.
and thats the kicker right there.
the people who have the most incentive to leak it are people who want to pressure a wobbly judge to stick to their original stance. liberal judges are already sticking to their stance. they aint moving no matter what. the (conservative) chief justice is already reported to be wobbly and logically could be seeking to sway another conservative judge to wobble a little bit too.
i mean...this is the one issue that has motivated the republican base and entire judicial network into political alignment/activism the most. this is the exact issue republicans have been using to campaign on filling court seats for decades. overturning roe/wade. why wouldnt they go to unprecedented lengths to make sure they get their holy grail when theyre finally at the 1 yard line?
plus ask yourself...from a common sense perspective...which political side has had the longer and more extensive history of blowing up institutional norms and leaking information for political cynicism?
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Tue May-03-22 12:24 PM
55. "I do wonder who leaked this and why." In response to Reply # 0
Did Sotomayor leak it to try to make clear the rage they were inviting, and hope it could convince someone (Gorsuch?) to switch sides?
Did Alito leak it to test the waters and see if anyone would be convinced by his bullshit logic?
Did Thomas leak it to preempt the July release, hoping the rage would die down a bit more by the time of the general election?
Did Roberts leak it to make it clear to the GOP activist wing that they really would be throwing away the court's legitimacy if they went through with it?
Did some clerk for one of these people leak it for one of the same reasons? (That seems most likely but the least dramatic. It's like Deep Throat turning out to be Mark Felt.)
Out of curiosity, I turned the TV on to Fox News this morning to see how they were talking about it. No surprise: they didn't have much to say about the fact that the government was now officially gonna force women use their bodies to to carry unwanted fetuses to term. But they had a lot to say about how "inappropriate" the leak was. Jonathan Turley (WTF happened to that dude, BTW?) was saying that it won't take them long to find out, and it'll supposedly be grounds for disbarment.
So was it Stephen Breyer? As a final fuck you to the creeps who are taking over the court (and the system that effectively forced him to retire early because Democratic senate majorities are now so rare)? He won't need a law licence in a few months...
67. "yeah that was an interesting take" In response to Reply # 63
i'm glad someone out there can project what may be rattling around in the cold calculating brains of the GOP leadership and their pledged evangelical base
79. "the nytimes story on the scoop said politico had it for a few days" In response to Reply # 63
before they released it.
the wsj (rupert murdoch) editorial board...which is *more* closely aligned with murdoch than the rank and file reporters...published a piece just a few days ago trying to head off an effort by john roberts to sway one of the conservative judges to a "middle ground".
btw politico (which was bought by right wing german media company axel springer) was recently a dumping ground for oppo research on madison cawthorn by republicans who wanted to oust him from his primary because of this comments about their cocaine orgies.
75. "Why settle for being a third option? Sounds defeatist" In response to Reply # 71
Third party is always just going to scoop up the scraps. They (Libertarian party, Green party, etc) love being the perpetual underdog.
Why not try build up the desired platform into a major party? Make a viable coalition.
There are political realignments all the time, especially when the economy, culture, and major issues change. Even Democrats and Republicans are not the same as they were 20 years ago.
76. "It's not defeatist if you do it right" In response to Reply # 75
one idea is you can build up enough support for a third party that the democrats would need your support and actually have to earn your vote, before you as a party agreed to support the democratic nominee for office.
You can also run your own candidates and hopefully get a larger voice in national debates.
There are ways a 3rd, 4th or 5th party could be useful.
In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king. -Hunter S. Thompson
82. "using a 3rd party simply to pressure a major party is doing it right?" In response to Reply # 76
you pretty much admit that the 3rd party is basically just a straw man or placeholder. and not an actual entity you believe in.
it just leads to spoiling elections in favor of the political party that you agree with the least. like 2000 and 2016 (where third party voting is the highest).
its the exact line of thinking that makes people support 3rd parties as a form of 'protest' against a major party (even tho they know the 3rd party has no chance of actually winning or doing shit).
quite frankly much of the 3rd party voter thought process is stupid. for several reasons. the biggest one being that it hasnt remotely been close to accomplishing the stated goal in any election lol.
its the definition of insanity. we have already seen this movie over and over lol.
if you truly want to influence the direction of a party...you support and vote for candidates in *primaries* to put them at the top of ticket of a party that actually has a chance of winning a general election and enacting your preferred policies.
thats *literally* the tried and true secret to success lol. thats the method that has been used over and over but people on the left ignore it for some reason.
thats what republicans do.
when they dont like the way the party is headed...they vote *more*. for candidates in that *party* who reflect their views (no matter how extreme those views were previously considered to be).
they dont talk about 3rd parties.
they work within the actual 2 party framework the way it exists in reality (and not in theory).
you push democrats in a more progressive direction by working to elect more progressive democrats. but that would actually require being a more active participant in democracy and utilizing the levers of power that most liberals cant bother themselves to be interested in (like primaries).
green party congressional candidates are *all* at home counting gullible donor money (literally none of them are elected to congress lol). progressive *dems* ed markey and aoc are in congress mainstreaming much of the green party climate agenda.
people should be able to conclude why things worked out that way and why it provides an *obvious* strategy to best achieve their goals.
83. "RE: using a 3rd party simply to pressure a major party is doing it right..." In response to Reply # 82
>you pretty much admit that the 3rd party is basically just a >straw man or placeholder. and not an actual entity you >believe in.
You lost me at the first line. That's not what I said and not what I believe at all. It's also the way government is run in many different parts of the world. Not sure why people in our country are so tied to a 2 party system that doesn't really meet the majority of our citizens needs.
In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king. -Hunter S. Thompson
87. "these people assume parliamentary govts would automatically be better." In response to Reply # 84
but you can easily point to plenty that are dysfunctional, anti-democratic, and so on (israel, hungary, etc).
and the functioning parliaments in most western democratic nations require multi party coalition/cooperation power sharing agreements that encourage strict compromise and moderation (which lefties in america abhor). you end up with shit like climate advocates aligning with far right nativists to push a green energy future but also ban burqas and persecute immigrants (american lefties dont wanna talk about this when they claim the dem party is entirely more conservative than european dem socialist nations).
and maybe the most pervasive assumption is that a parliamentary government is intrinsically better for *their* interests. but the multi factional nature of liberals and the various parties that it spurns (center left, socialist, green, etc) makes it harder for all of those to attain power because of the splitting/cannibalizing vs the largely homogenous conservative bloc.
bernie sanders barely won 25% of the votes on the left and got annihilated in states where liberal and conservative vote shares are the tightest. his platform didnt even appeal to the majority of people on the american left. no way to pretend his platform represented the majority of americans. now also imagine if he ran in a parliamentary system where he would actually split votes with a green candidate, and a labor candidate, and a socialist candidate, and a center left candidate...or all of the liberal parliamentary parties other than the one he was representing (assuming he would be a part of one those mentioned). his support would be even more diluted.
i mean...the uk labor party (and 'bernie sanders of the uk' jeremy corbyn) got *annihilated* at a historic level against a historically unpopular conservative candidate. clearly the parliamentary system didnt even work in favor of lefties in a country economically to the left of the us.
meanwhile centrist emmanuel macron in france won his 1st election by a historical margin with a massive parliamentary majority. and then became the 1st french prez in 20 yrs to win re-election.
so nothing these folks believe about this stuff has proven to be a given in reality (and many times is downright unlikely or unrealistic).
85. "people are tied to the actual system we have lol." In response to Reply # 83
and not some system from a foreign country that would be strictly forbidden by the laws of our country lol.
this is what i mean about people relying on fantasy when there are methods that have been proven to work under the system we have in reality. it makes no sense.
91. "open and ranked choice primaries both favor the more moderate candidate." In response to Reply # 89
they are examples of things that logically sound like theyd work one way. but turn out to work differently when actually put into practice (and the reasons they work out that way turn out be really logical in hindsight lol).
'progressives' (who tend to have the most traction in already blue districts) have lost winnable primaries when independents (who lean more right to dems) and republicans vote in the dem primary for the candidate they can stomach the most.
and ranked choice voting usually makes more people vote for the safe or least extreme/polarizing candidate with their 2nd, 3rd, etc choice.
the majority of voters exist closer to the middle. 'progressives' are further away from the middle. its a simple math issue that 'progressives' need to come to grips with and adjust to.
the best way for progressives to win is to run races that are strategically fit to their specific constituents and appeal to the widest coalition/range of voters while costing them the least votes. which requires moderation on some issues that invite more demographics into your tent.
its such an easy fix and the simplest gameplan to successful democratic politics. and its also the one thing a lot of 'progressives' refuse to do.
stravinskian Member since Feb 24th 2003 12698 posts
Tue May-03-22 09:44 PM
96. "Unfortunately a bunch of slaveholders ~250 years ago. " In response to Reply # 95 Tue May-03-22 09:45 PM by stravinskian
Nobody is saying the two-party system is good, only that it's inevitable. Inevitable in ways that would require constitutional amendments to change. (A process that favors rural right-wing states even more than the senate and electoral college do.)
Right where it says a presidential candidate needs to personally get a majority of electoral votes. That immediately means that a third party can only serve as a spoiler.
And yes, I'm not a fan of the Constitution either. Most other democracies either don't have one or (for better or worse) they rewrite it every few years. That way they don't have to contend with dumb questions like "what would James Madison think about assault rifles."
But if you're in this country and you think politics is worthwhile, this is what you're stuck with.
93. "its always wait. not now. do it the same old way." In response to Reply # 82
incremental change!
no.
the lesser evil devil you know logic you and others like you promote is EXACTLY why shit is the way it is.
the democratic party is basura. down to the state level. corrupt, feckless, weak, pathetic. the GOP is worse.
for those who recognize that for what it is its incumbent on those people to change the system. we are participating. just not how YOU want.
ballot access laws...created by the state party in charge have much more to do with why the green party or other parties are not winning more elections. as ive said im sure to you on numerous occasions and will say again
the 2 party system is not working in my favor. my job therefore is to change it. you keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result im off that
72. "purely anecdotal but 3 women i follow on ig" In response to Reply # 0 Tue May-03-22 03:34 PM by Reeq
stripper/onlyfans girl, bm of an nba player, and a hostess at a nightclub...
biracial, colombian, and a white girl who hangs around all black people...
all from the miami area (this is another subject)...
none overly religious, conservative, etc...prolly voted for obama if i had to guess...
started posting anti vax and anti dem/biden memes and eventually outright supporting trump/desantis/etc.
today is the 1st time i saw them posting pro-choice stuff, stuff critical of the supreme court, stuff criticizing republicans for being more concerned about the leak than the legal decision, stuff mocking some chick on twitter who said anti-abortion folks never resorted to unlawfulness following roe/wade, etc.
maybe be an informal case study on how people get polarized on certain issues (especially ones that personally affect them) and end up swaying left/right.
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79594 posts
Tue May-03-22 03:44 PM
74. "IG models aint voting fan.. unless its on IG" In response to Reply # 72
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
