|
Shirkelton posted:How do people who truly believe the Democrats aren’t incompetent or callous honestly reckon with the current state of US politics? I've been re-listening to Last Podcast On The Left, and their bit on the Children of God cult has given me a CHARITABLE allegory for the issues with Democrats and Republicans. The COG cult was founded by David Berg, who was a true sexual monster who, in the way cult leaders want to turn everyone around them into pod people clones of themselves, forced his insane sexual deviancy onto his inner circle. This culminated in the birth of the cult's 'Jesus', Ricky Rodriguez, who was taught this 'enlightened and divine' truth ie horribly sexually abused his whole life until he grew up and fled the cult. However, the mental damage was too much, and he decided he had to kill his birth mother and their inner circle for their evils (Berg was already dead). Unable to get at his mother (who had been in hiding for years, even now), he settled on one of his mother's associates. There's video of him doing preparations in the same way spree killers will, but as it turned out, Ricky was not a killer at heart. While he did manage to lure said associate, and he did stab her to death, the process completely broke him, made even worse by the fact that the woman, while dying, was completely and utterly baffled about why this was happening. She'd been brainwashed so thoroughly that nothing could break through it, not even murder. Two or so days after the killing, Ricky shot himself. His mother promptly turned him into a martyr, using him as a 'way to discuss suicide' and basically exploiting him all over again, without a second thought. Sometimes I think that's what the Democrats and Republicans are. The Democrats are Ricky, and even fueled by the deepest rage and doing something that could well be argued to be justifiable jury nullification reap what you sow homicide, in the end just couldn't handle the pitch black heartlessness that you really NEED to get past your innate empathy, even for the best of reasons. The Republicans are his mother and the associate, able to do the most vile poo poo without any hesitation, or so twisted up in the head that reality has ceased to have any meaning for them. That's being charitable, of course. The cynical/realistic(?) view is that both sides are bought and paid for and are just going through the motions and that this game was lost decades before any of us were born.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:What world have you been living in to still believe that demographic destiny funneled through electoral politics is going to somehow save democracy at this point? Because "demographics as destiny" is still true if your time horizon is twenty years, not five. The challenge is surviving long enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
eke out posted:Well, as step 1, I would not add so few justices that I am still in the minority, as that would be idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:32
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:A lot of people in this thread acting like Barret getting confirmed was anything but a foregone conclusion. I don’t understand how anyone is at all shocked. Mitch has the majority, gives no fucks, there’s nothing anyone could do to stop it. It was a foregone conclusion, it is just extremely frustrating that it has been over two years since Kavanaugh got shoved in and not a single Democrat bothered to double check whether the rules they cling to so hard are actually enforceable. It would be incredible if just one time they got a legal ruling that says that X law has to be followed, instead of just shaking their heads every time the Republicans blatantly disregard it and suffer no consequences. Was RBG dying right now unfortunate timing? Yes, but she has been sick for a long time. If they didn't know this was possible and made contingencies for it then they were negligent to the extreme. Deteriorata posted:The Constitution says that the Senate gets to set its own rules, so the party that can scrape together 51 votes can do whatever they want to. There is no ruling from any higher authority that's going to change that. I don't remember a huge push by the blue senate to push a constitutional amendment that would make those rules enforceable and then an overwhelming, senate AND house-gridlocking demand for enforcement, but maybe I just forgot. CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:It was a foregone conclusion, it is just extremely frustrating that it has been over two years since Kavanaugh got shoved in and not a single Democrat bothered to double check whether the rules they cling to so hard are actually enforceable. It would be incredible if just one time they got a legal ruling that says that X law has to be followed, instead of just shaking their heads every time the Republicans blatantly disregard it and suffer no consequences. The Constitution says that the Senate gets to set its own rules, so the party that can scrape together 51 votes can do whatever they want to. There is no ruling from any higher authority that's going to change that. You're mad at the Democrats for not using magic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:36
|
|
|
Again, there are no magical contingencies that change the fact that Trump is POTUS and Mitch McConnell has 51 votes in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Great, let's talk about that. Do you agree with me that Schumer and the rest really hosed that part up? If they take back the Senate and White House, no. If they don't, yes. We'll find out next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:38
|
|
|
I never imagined the Democrats would even be making as much noise as they are about Judicial Reform, especially before the election. Words are wind, but I didn't even expect any wind, and wind can indeed presage a storm. But people are somehow even more hopeless now then they were for the last two horror shows even though the solution is 1) obvious 2) potentially within our grasp and 3) being at least openly considered by those who would implement it. Is it really just now that at least for the next couple of months the Court needs TWO broken clocks to strike rather than only one to avoid Pure Evil? Because I already found relying on the one Broken Clock really lovely, so I'm still surprised at how far people apparently had to fall here. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The Constitution says that the Senate gets to set its own rules, so the party that can scrape together 51 votes can do whatever they want to. There is no ruling from any higher authority that's going to change that. I think we're all on the same page that the Dems couldn't have done anything to delay Barrett's confirmation, but do you think they did as good a job as possible on the messaging front? Seven Hundred Bee posted:Because "demographics as destiny" is still true if your time horizon is twenty years, not five. The challenge is surviving long enough. A lot of people can't wait that long. If the Democrats want the American political system to survive in anything resembling what it has been for the past seventy years, they're going to have to get better at playing this game. Xombie posted:If they take back the Senate and White House, no. If they don't, yes. We'll find out next week. I think you're discounting the possibility that the Dems hosed this up, but it didn't have any significant negative impact on the election, ie: it was a wasted opportunity. Sanguinia posted:I never imagined the Democrats would even be making as much noise as they are about Judicial Reform, especially before the election. Words are wind, but I didn't even expect any wind, and wind can indeed presage a storm. But people are somehow even more hopeless now then they were for the last two horror shows even though the solution is 1) obvious 2) potentially within our grasp and 3) being at least openly considered by those who would implement it. I think people would feel less hopeless if Feinstein's "questioning" of Barrett hadn't been such an incredible dumpster fire. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:It was a foregone conclusion, it is just extremely frustrating that it has been over two years since Kavanaugh got shoved in and not a single Democrat bothered to double check whether the rules they cling to so hard are actually enforceable. It would be incredible if just one time they got a legal ruling that says that X law has to be followed, instead of just shaking their heads every time the Republicans blatantly disregard it and suffer no consequences. The only contingency is to pack the courts and change senate rules if /when Democrats take power. Until then the unfortunate reality is there’s nothing that could be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Right now only one party recognizes that the utility of power is in what you wield it for, not in resting on the accomplishment of attaining it, and things are pretty loving chaotic. If you want them to get less chaotic then there has to be some actual fighting back. I’m curious how that would’ve been any different than voting no. Republicans would still have a quorum and nothing substantive would be gained. You can argue it’s more powerful symbolically, I’d argue 100% dem votes against is better, but that’s really irrelevant because again, no matter how much anyone screams, there was literally NOTHING the dem senate caucus could do to delay or prevent this. This problem is at least a decade old and the public body has to start recognizing its responsibility as well or it will continue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Because "demographics as destiny" is still true if your time horizon is twenty years, not five. The challenge is surviving long enough. But we can't let our guard down. While it is true that the under 45 crowd is WAY more to the left than the previous generations, conservatism and fascism is going to come back in some form or another. Reactionary politics, like now with anti-SJWs and "owning the libs", will find new and inventive ways of worming themselves into the brains of the next generation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:43
|
|
|
The real difficulty with court packing is going to be numbers, as in Biden Pelosi and Schumer all acting in concert will need everyone on board for a plan where they rewrite every rule of the Senate on a strict majority basis. Manchin and Feinstein will never go for it, probably others as well, so the Dems will need to win a majority and then some on Nov 3rd. Even with all that you'll need the Supreme Court to really step in it on the ACA case or overturn Roe v. Wade or something to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:45
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Again, there are no magical contingencies that change the fact that Trump is POTUS and Mitch McConnell has 51 votes in the Senate. When the Senate was 50-50 after Bush was elected, Democrats actually flipped a Republican with a juicy committee chairmanship and took over control of the Senate. It’s amazing what can happen when you don’t just throw your hands up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:The real difficulty with court packing is going to be numbers, as in Biden Pelosi and Schumer all acting in concert will need everyone on board for a plan where they rewrite every rule of the Senate on a strict majority basis. Manchin and Feinstein will never go for it, probably others so the Dems will need to win a majority and then some on Nov 3rd. Even with all that you'll need the Supreme Court to really step in it on the ACA case or overturn Roe v. Wade or something to make it happen. The "reform the federal court system" is a good angle. Federal courts really do need reforming, they're badly structured and most are way overworked. Adding justices to the court can be framed as rectifying a wrong - Congress used to add a seat for every circuit court and for some reason stopped at 9. Now there are 13 circuits and it's time we caught up. Add more courts, more judges at all levels and make a huge deal about it. Let the court packing be a secondary issue to all the other changes being proposed. It's still a tough sell, but it's easier than just adding SC justices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think you're discounting the possibility that the Dems hosed this up, but it didn't have any significant negative impact on the election, ie: it was a wasted opportunity. The only opportunity they have for addressing the balance of SCOTUS is retaking the Senate and WH. That is a thing that's real. I'm not really interested in fictioning out other imaged effects to an imaged action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People will point out that an 11 seat court still puts the left in the minority, but we’re not shooting to kill here.  Oh yes we loving are. Make the GOP and all their supporters politically irrelevant for generations and let the progressives run the show for 50 or 60 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:50
|
|
|
squirrelzipper posted:I’m curious how that would’ve been any different than voting no. Republicans would still have a quorum and nothing substantive would be gained. You can argue it’s more powerful symbolically, I’d argue 100% dem votes against is better, but that’s really irrelevant because again, no matter how much anyone screams, there was literally NOTHING the dem senate caucus could do to delay or prevent this. This problem is at least a decade old and the public body has to start recognizing its responsibility as well or it will continue. In addition to this, if the democrats wouldn't have shown up, Collins might have just voted yes. Now they can say there was bipartisan support for voting against ACB's nomination. If they decide to actually try to pack the SCOTUS bench in the future, they can use that line for PR purposes in justification. Also, is anyone else surprised that Collins actually voted no? I feel like this is the first time she actually kept her word in her rebuke against other Republicans. Obviously, it's just trying to save face for the election, but I'm still surprised. Kalit fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:In addition to this, if the democrats wouldn't have shown up, Collins might have just voted yes. Now they can say there was bipartisan support for voting against ACB's nomination. If they decide to actually try to pack the courts in the future, they can use that line for PR purposes in justification. Re: Collins, not at all. She had a hall pass and if she hadn’t used it her campaign was over. Hopefully it still is but voting yes was sepuko and she’s they aren’t true believers in anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:54
|
|
|
What are the likely scenarios, if any, for Trump utilizing SCOTUS to steal the election? Sue states on made up charges to have democratic votes thrown out? Stop counting at strategic times to hand the rust belt to Trump? I haven't seen much on this- if there's even the tiniest opening here, they are going to take it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Stepping away from Barrett chat for a second - since Trump set the precedent for investigating Obama and his administration, what are the odds that Biden does the same? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:If she is 100% going to be in the court (she is), it will motivate more democrats if it happens before the election. why? i'd assume that if they delayed the case, and the seat was open up until the election, that would get people who care about the court excited to vote, and might flip some marginal voters. is the assumption that people who care about the court skew republican, so that making the court an ongoing issue will give them a benefit? i don't know if that's true, or why fighting the republicans would somehow hurt the democrats more than doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Fairness doctrine should come back too and breaking up these media companies like Sinclair and Facebook, time to make the right wing media even more impotent than their hosts already are. The democrats should be airing grievances just like Trump did if they take back the senate and WH and throw everything out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:What are the likely scenarios, if any, for Trump utilizing SCOTUS to steal the election? Sue states on made up charges to have democratic votes thrown out? Stop counting at strategic times to hand the rust belt to Trump? If the margin of Biden's win is 20,000 late arriving votes in, say, AZ, which are only counted because of an earlier judicial decision overturning existing election law, the SC can throw it to Trump. Very, very, very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
T. Bombastus posted:Step 0.5 should be reading the entire conversation you're participating in, which started when Craptacular suggested only adding 2 justices. Yes, this is a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The only opportunity they have for addressing the balance of SCOTUS is retaking the Senate and WH. Yes, and the Democrats passed up an opportunity to wave the bloody shirt and make those things more likely. Instead, they went with a strategy that is probably going to cost Jaime Harrison's chances of unseating Lindsey Graham.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Stepping away from Barrett chat for a second - since Trump set the precedent for investigating Obama and his administration, what are the odds that Biden does the same? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think in one of the town halls he said he does not believe in political retaliation and has no interest in pursuing criminal charges or investigations against the Trump admin. edit: maybe not the Trump admin specifically but past administrations in general Carew fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:why? i'd assume that if they delayed the case, and the seat was open up until the election, that would get people who care about the court excited to vote, and might flip some marginal voters. is the assumption that people who care about the court skew republican, so that making the court an ongoing issue will give them a benefit? i don't know if that's true, or why fighting the republicans would somehow hurt the democrats more than doing nothing. There's no way to tell but my personal assumption is that people who hate Trump but love banning abortions would see this as a victory where they no longer have to vote for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:What are the likely scenarios, if any, for Trump utilizing SCOTUS to steal the election? They increase dramatically depending on how close the results are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Maybe because Republicans have controlled at least one, if not all three of the WH, Sen, or House for the last 10 years, making it impossible for the Democrats to get meaningful legislation passed. This doesn’t make them seem competent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Carew posted:I think in one of the town halls he said he does not believe in political retaliation and has no interest in pursuing criminal charges or investigations against the Trump admin. I would doubt he would go after any crimes by Trump committed while he was in office. There's plenty of other crimes, though, by his family and corporation before he took office that are coming to light and gradually making their way through the courts already. I would doubt he would do anything to affect those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:What are the likely scenarios, if any, for Trump utilizing SCOTUS to steal the election? Sue states on made up charges to have democratic votes thrown out? Stop counting at strategic times to hand the rust belt to Trump? If there's a close, Florida 2000-style recount in a decisive state, file a blizzard of lawsuits and let SCOTUS come up with whatever paper-thin justification they want. If there's not a super-close election in a decisive state, whine on Twitter about the voter fraud he is very sure decided the election, send surrogates to do the same in the media, and pound sand. I get expecting to see 2020 pull one more horrifying stunt after four years of Trump insanity, but the chances of Trump being able to steal the election through the courts are quite a bit slimmer than him just winning the election outright - which is also looking pretty damned unlikely at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Shirkelton posted:How do people who truly believe the Democrats aren’t incompetent or callous honestly reckon with the current state of US politics? I've rewritten this post far too many times now and it's just this: We're staring at the abyss, let people hope for one goddamned minute and stare at the sky instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:What are the likely scenarios, if any, for Trump utilizing SCOTUS to steal the election? Sue states on made up charges to have democratic votes thrown out? Stop counting at strategic times to hand the rust belt to Trump? As far as I understand it, it depends. If it’s a complete blowout for Biden and he landslides WI, MI, PA and a couple others, there is no SCOTUS play. If it’s close, really close, in a couple key battlegrounds then it’s a replay of Florida and ratfuckery will be the order of the day. More knowledgeable goons please do the needful if I’m wrong. Also why the gently caress is this thread still in slow mode? That’s dumb. Discouraging posting is shameful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:People keep coming up with this number. It seems they should add two seats, one for Garland’s stolen seat and one for this injustice. You are failing to understand the math. You can't balance a stolen seat with one additional appointment. You have to add two. And that's already a compromise! A 7-6 liberal court would be significantly more favorable to conservatives than a 5-4 liberal court. Explaining the math might be slightly tricky, but the outcome should be really loving obvious. If to try to rebalance something that should have been in your favor and it comes out weighted against you, you didn't really redress the balance issue. Stickman fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
This is so loving disgusting. These people cannot be reformed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Shirkelton posted:This doesn’t make them seem competent. Neither does it make them incompetent. You must have the opportunity to act before you can be judged on your ability to do so. Calling them "incompetent" for not passing laws they physically can't pass because they don't have enough votes is not very meaningful criticism. Getting anything done in the last 10 years required cooperation from the Republican party, something the Republican party has very publicly made their policy not to do. You seem to be another one who thinks they should have waved a magic wand to change a situation that couldn't otherwise be changed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Crain posted:I've rewritten this post far too many times now and it's just this: I understand this and agree, but you're not going to find anything but false hope in the Democratic establishment. They're not our allies. Find hope and solace and reason for optimism in the activated, radicalized, motivated people taking to the streets. They're not going back to sleep after the election. Deteriorata posted:Neither does it make them incompetent. You must have the opportunity to act before you can be judged on your ability to do so. Calling Barrett's confirmation process illegitimate, and kicking and screaming every step of the way, wouldn't have required a magic wand. It's what they needed to do, and they refused to do it. Instead we got Feinstein tossing softballs. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Oct 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand this and agree, but you're not going to find anything but false hope in the Democratic establishment. They're not our allies. Find hope and solace and reason for optimism in the activated, radicalized, motivated people taking to the streets. They're not going back to sleep after the election. I mean, I'm not one fooled to think that this election really "solves" anything. There's no reason to believe that even if the Dems get the House, Senate, and Presidency that they'll go as hard or as far as they need to really fix anything, and also manage to do it in two years before the dipshit US electorate decides to give the GOP control of at least the senate again. The real answer is that if you're not hoping for the dems to fix anything then you better be preparing for some hard poo poo to go down, and not everyone is able to face that reality yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:59 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I understand this and agree, but you're not going to find anything but false hope in the Democratic establishment. They're not our allies. Find hope and solace and reason for optimism in the activated, radicalized, motivated people taking to the streets. They're not going back to sleep after the election. Feinstein is literally senile. Maybe her district bears some responsibility for her presence. I agree the old guard sucks but you’re asking for symbolic gestures that mean nothing 8 days from a presidential election. Also, I hope you’re right about the activism, we’ll see. America - where less than 60% of eligible voters, you know, vote - hasn’t been known for the general public’s engagement. Maybe that’s changing. Maybe no. But unless it’s a yes, unreservedly and in a revolutionary way, you better loving hope the useless dems win this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2020 05:23
|
|