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.
We need a revolution at this point. Things won't change unless we take matters into our own hands.Stack the damn courts.
Wake me up when there is a 6-3 Dem leaning SC shoving everything progressive down GOP's throat.
So your definition of a protest voter is someone who voted for Trump over Hillary?I didn't say anything about "Bernie bros" though it's telling on yourself a bit that that's what you jumped to lol. I'm obviously not referring to people who supported a different candidate before voting for Hillary. Anyone who voted for Hillary in the general chose correctly. Everyone else who didn't is to blame for our last five years and next 30-40 years of Supreme Court rulings.
That's me alright, no contempt for conservatives at all.
Sure in hindsight I agree it would've been better if RGB had retired under Obama. But I don't think you understand your own math.
Sure in hindsight I agree it would've been better if RGB had retired under Obama. But I don't think you understand your own math.
It's always been shaky because Congress never gave the EPA enough specific guidelines about their specific regulatory powers. It's a reversal of the 1984 Chveron decision where the justices basically said "we don't know anything about this so generally we'll let the regulatory agencies do whatever they want" and now they're going to say "we don't know anything about this but we still think this is an overreach of power and you shouldn't do this unless Congress says you can"
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.Republicans have a strategy that has paid dividends. They figured out how to maintain power without a majority and put their foot on the neck of the courts. It will be decades before anything meaningful happens.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
A 5-4 conservative court is still a conservative court. It would not appreciably change the landscape of SCOTUS rulings, especially this one.RGB and Brown to dems would've tilted courts much differently than the overwhelming majority we have now. Same for garland.
There have never been 60 votes in the Senate to pass serious climate legislation. Maybe in an alternate universe where Al Gore was president.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.
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.
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.
Because that group really wasn't big enough to swing an election.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.
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.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.
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 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.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?
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.Math was bad
Garland makes it 3 and they couldn;'t do shit cause they lose the senate, that's not on voters.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.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?
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.
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.
In an election that close, any group of voters can swing the outcome!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.
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.
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.
Whelp, they're about to make it official that we're fucked.
I'm glad I don't have children.
If Americans are shit at their core like you previously stated how does voting "make them less terrible"?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.
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.
If Americans are shit at their core like you previously stated how does voting "make them less terrible"?
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.because most people know dems wouldn't do shit and weren't excited or angered at anything.
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 vigilant voter that is well informed.
Why the fuck would anyone trust your anecdotes when there is literal studies shown that Bernie voters voted for Hillary?No, the loss in key swing states is all on the shoulder of very real spiteful bernie bros, trust me.
But for real, always funny see how liberal hate way more out of line leftist than the right wing, nevrr change liberals.
If Americans are shit at their core like you previously stated how does voting "make them less terrible"?
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.)
If Americans are shit at their core like you previously stated how does voting "make them less terrible"?