Stack the damn courts.
Wake me up when there is a 6-3 Dem leaning SC shoving everything progressive down GOP's throat.
Wake me up when there is a 6-3 Dem leaning SC shoving everything progressive down GOP's throat.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Republicans' Supreme Court expected to Limit Government Ability to Enact Climate Change Measures This Month (New York Times)
- Thread starter Teusery
- Start date
If this is how destructive they are, at some point in the future states will start ignoring the courts just to survive.
We need a revolution at this point. Things won't change unless we take matters into our own hands.
So your definition of a protest voter is someone who voted for Trump over Hillary?
That's not a protest voter, that's just a voter.
RGB and Brown to dems would've tilted courts much differently than the overwhelming majority we have now. Same for garland.
The same for if dems had kept control of senate various times.
It's not considering most of this is self inflicted wounds over the past decade. That's not on voters certainly not with a super majority that could've been used to pack the courts, but again dems rested on their laurels thinking the republicans had some duty to democracy when their disdain for it has been clear since FDR.
So basically we need congress to do their job and actually provide concrete laws to slow down climate change and protect the environment. One would have hoped they'd have gotten around to that at some point over the last few decades.
Yep, they made a calculated bet that their base would be more motivated by court packing than the opposition and it worked. The GOP's legislative agenda is largely unpopular with the public and they don't have the votes to pass much of it anyway, but jamming the judiciary with right-wing nuts allows them to get what they want without having to attach their own names/votes to it. And since the Supreme Court never has to face voters they can do whatever they want, for any reason, and no one can say otherwise.
How about the individuals that didn't vote or protest voted as opposed to saying that any overlap with other groups is to blame as well.
How about blaming Republicans.
Yeah. Our country said "we don't need a king" then proceeded to put several kings in the government.
The fact that we have a country that is setup so poorly that it allows a minority party to completely dominate some of the most important institutions that impact our collective futures is something I'll never not be bitter about. Winning basically isn't good enough in the United States. You have to win in a very specific way to control the direction of the country entirely.
We need unified leadership in the right direction to combat things like climate change, political corruption and wealth inequality, but that's what is almost impossible with the current state of affairs.
We need unified leadership in the right direction to combat things like climate change, political corruption and wealth inequality, but that's what is almost impossible with the current state of affairs.
I really don't feel like any of these groups are big enough to have swung the result as many people want to believe. Hillary ran a bad campaign and lost the swing voters. It really is that simple. If people want to blame someone, blame the democratic party for being so ineffective and incompetent at stopping the rise of blatant fascism.
My definition of a protest voter is someone who voted for some third-party nut or didn't vote at all (many of whom did so because they "wanted to send a message"). Don't know what you're finding so confusing about all this.
A 5-4 conservative court is still a conservative court. It would not appreciably change the landscape of SCOTUS rulings, especially this one.
If Garland had been confirmed it'd be a totally different story, but obviously that was not going to happen since Dems didn't control the Senate in 2016.
There have never been 60 votes in the Senate to pass serious climate legislation. Maybe in an alternate universe where Al Gore was president.
It's so frustrating seeing all the effort countries are doing for the environment being most likely swept away by America doing less whenever they elect republicans. It feels like all we are doing for the environment is mostly pointless because after the next election in America when republicans most likely will win they will revert back to doing fuck all. And for all our effort, we will still get fucked over by that. And there is 0 we can do about it.
If this happens, then I think its safe to say that we can officially consider the United States of America an enemy of Humanity. There should be consequences to actively fucking over the planet and putting in place impediments to restoring damage done.
Math was bad
Garland makes it 3 and they couldn;'t do shit cause they lose the senate, that's not on voters.
The whole entire point of my little spiel is various fucks up largely since the turn of century depressed voter turnout for the party.
and again that comment is meaningless when obama had a super majority they didn't bother to pack the courts . No one has any doubts what republicans will do when they get in power again. 2016 is meaningless when 2009-2012 was the greater fuckup, they had a chance to do something then not in 2016.
Maybe we should discuss the bigger problem your take ignores, not enough voters aren't showing up when they need to and where they need too but that would defeat the point of you having a hot take. Don't say it can be done repubs are proof anger, misinformation and blinding voting for the team works yet dems haven't learned shit from FDR, post nixon and republicans forming fox news, republicans being way better at utilizing the net and so on. That's on voters though. /s
Last edited:
There is no flaw a democrat could possibly have that would make it worth considering having a Republican govern any aspect of my life or anyone else's in light of this and every other atrocity they want to Inflict on humanity. Unless there is a revolution around the corner, what is there to think about?
Because that group really wasn't big enough to swing an election.
Hillary and the party failed. Swing voters make the difference and they ignored them. It's truly that simple.
The upside is that, for better or worse, many states and cities + the private sector seem to be generally moving in a pro-climate direction regardless of the feds. For instance, Trump's EPA rolled back Obama's tailpipe emissions rule, expecting all the automakers to start churning out the biggest fucking gas guzzlers they could. Instead the automakers looked at California, with its strict emissions rules, and sided with them because that's where the market is. As sick as it is, "climate capitalism" is probably our best path forward for action.
I know that, but this is counting on the executive branch to make shit up as they go along to work out in the long term coming home to roost. This shit should have been enshrined in law some time in the last 50 years. As bullshit as this ruling is going to turn out, the supreme court telling congress to do their damn job is hardly unprecedented.
It's a no brainer for people like you and me but you have to remember how many Americans have been propagandized out of their minds with concepts of nationalism, the importance of religion/Christianity, so on and so forth. Hell, 4 out of 5 Americans still believe in God. We might think that's absurd but this country is full of people who don't and you have to pander to them to some extent if you want to win. Obama figured that out. Hillary did not.
Dems losing the Senate isn't on voters? Is there an independent referee that decides who gets to control Congress instead? Democratic turnout in 2014 was abysmal.
Am I ignoring that? I feel like blame the voters is my whole ethos lol. Yes, not enough voters are showing up! Voters not turning out was a problem in 2016, it was a problem in 2014, it was a problem in 2010, and it'll undoubtedly be a problem this year. I am not ignoring the fact that this country is constantly being fucked over by left of center voters frequently deciding to waste their vote or not vote at all.
In the abstract sure, but the "Congress should do their job" rulings only happen when it's to constrain Democratic governance. The justices obviously know that a law granting the EPA more climate-specific powers will never happen short of a anti-filibuster majority in the Senate. SCOTUS is all too happy to legislate from the bench when it benefits Republicans.
Hillary had a better margin than House Dems in 2016, which Obama did not in 2008. 2008 massively favored Democrats so either candidate would have easily won. Biden laser focused on 2016-hindsight swing states, and under performed in them relative to the national margin worse than Hillary did.
You're really not correcting for the cycle, and it makes you come off as angry, lazy, and deflecting. You also don't seem to have anything remotely resembling a decent historic understanding of elections. The general partisan trend is vastly greater than the nuances of campaign strategy.
America is a shit country because the voters are shit. You shouldn't blame candidates for the 200+ year history of voters voting for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and greed. What type of deranged asshole would try to place the blame for the confederacy only on the politicians for failing to overcome the will of the shitty populations they represent? Who the fuck blames Jimmy Carter for the rise of Reagan, or Goldwater for Nixon? It is just a totally bonkers worldview that has had a massive surge within the last few years, mostly by internet trolls, for internet trolls, in communities that thrive on moral grandstanding.
Last edited:
I guess that is really our best shot. You make your products in a way that destroys the environment? You can do that but then you can't sell your products in half the states of America, and if you try to sell it here in Europe it will just get send straight back. My fear is though the the upcoming rough economic times will mean that people will be much less inclined to spend the extra money that environmental friendly products costs to produce.
I agree with the takeaway at the end there. Electoralism won't solve our problems as history has shown its a system designed to preserve the status quo. Yet when I bring up the overall futility of Electoralism as a means for significant social change liberals also jump down my throat for not voting hard enough despite you agreeing that it won't solve our societal woes. There's no winning.
They have the votes to pass them in their states though and that's what matters to them. Even unpopular provisions keep being passed but as polarized as things are, it doesn't matter. They will still be voted into office.
That's not entirely true. The Supreme Court can only do whatever Congress allows them to, in theory. Congress can change SCOTUS but the votes need to be there.
This.
In an election that close, any group of voters can swing the outcome!
This "Hillary ignored the swing states" narrative has really taken on a life of its own the last five years. She famously neglected Wisconsin (more related to bad polling and campaign management than some special hatred for Wisconsinites) but also campaigned hard in Pennsylvania, even closed out her campaign there, where her margin was only like 0.05% better. She also performed better in FL and NV, particularly with Latino voters, than Biden did in 2020, and even put money in GA and AZ — a waste of resources in 2016 but marked the beginning of making both states more competitive in the elections that followed.
A loss is a loss, but some people have twisted this into Hillary sitting on her ass in Brooklyn for a year, and totally overlooking how the election was decided by a combination of rural white voters (an electorate that not only has outsized influence in battleground states but has quickly grown very Republican; Biden performed no better with them and actually may have performed slightly worse?) and Dem-leaning voters staying home.
Electoralism is the bare minimum. It won't solve everything, but your version of anti-electoralism totally absolves the ones making terrible voting decisions. It is an overcorrection in a way that also ends up downplaying the importance of broader social movements to make American voters less terrible.
People just have a shit understanding of electoral history. We are witnessing the next folk electoral flash point, like 1960 where JFK won by stealing Illinois... totally neglecting the fact that it wasn't even necessary for him to hit 270. That bad electoral history is basically the cornerstone of the Republican party thinking that elections are rigged because how ingrained it became over decades.
You know, its pretty cool that the oil and gas industry, one of the biggest industries in the world, who got that way because they sell a product we all need to keep the system going, can turn around and use those profits to actively fuck us over for generations while simultaneously rigging said system to make it nearly impossible to change things. Its super duper cool.
*screaming internally*
*screaming internally*
If white trash rednecks who support this kind of stuff have kids and you don't, who inherits the future? Think ahead, my dudes.
America's so rotten that this is a problem the entire world will face for generations to come. Even if folks decide to leave America, and even for people who live halfway across the world, the impact of America's rampant and vicious machine will tear the entire planet apart.
If Americans are shit at their core like you previously stated how does voting "make them less terrible"?
because most people know dems wouldn't do shit and weren't excited or angered at anything. That's how this work voters show up for people that excite or will give them something. Don't play coy dems do shit for their donors but suddenly can't for any other group that votes for them. It because they serve donors and wall street that can't do solutions for other groups that might vote as well, but lets not mention that.
Guess who job it is to convince them to vote for them?
We don't live in some magical fantasy land where every citizen of this country is a vigilant voter that is well informed. That's the same reason dems are losing as well.
This ignore what happens when have super majorities which are are rare. They squander or can't get all of their own in line, meanwhile republicans have no problem. It happens because some democrats are dinos (democrats in name only.)
This is another big aspect. Critical and long term thinking aren't emphasized by our education system. People from a position of privilege who have the free time to look into this stuff on their own look down on others who don't. Surface level appearances and promises are all many people have to go on. And the dems have one hell of an image problem. They're painted as weak and ineffectual and their past couple decades of actions aren't exactly countering that.
Why the fuck would anyone trust your anecdotes when there is literal studies shown that Bernie voters voted for Hillary?
im at the point where i think we literally cannot have a world, if there isnt a fast revolution against these anti-human, anti-science conservative lunatics.
been at that point for about 25 years now tbh. there is even less hope now than ever, in my mind.
been at that point for about 25 years now tbh. there is even less hope now than ever, in my mind.
Are Americans "shit at their core"? Aren't most Americans that are registered registered as Democrats? When placed on local ballots, don't progressive policies usually win?
There's unpredicted organization and coordination and an unprecedented amount disinformation. Do Democratic politicians bear the brunt of the load here? How much is too much and when should ordinary citizens feel involved?
These things cycle, but it will take effort and momentum shift the pendulum back. Keep in mind, Republicans only control rural areas and rural people, and the foundation of that control is outright lies and unfounded fear.
The largest majority in even semi-recent history was LBJ, which resulted in the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. The second largest wave was Obama, which resulted in the Affordable Care Act. Farther back, FDR clawing out Senate wins in the 30s really fuelled the New Deal.
Yes, parties are not lock step, but large Democratic majorities are also the absolute high point of actually getting transformative bills through Congress.
Which Republican Senate are you thinking of when you imply they just shove shit through? We've been living on appointments and reconciliation for about 18 years now.
Voting doesn't make them less terrible. I'm saying that people that make terrible voting decisions (including non-voters) are the ones to blame for the state of the country.
Last edited:
