|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy".
Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy"
Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with.
You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose.
|
United States42523 Posts
On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose.
What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific.
|
On July 03 2024 01:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose. What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific.
Implement the most popular policy/policies his team has/can come up with that Republican politicians have prevented, ideally something that also has at least a bare majority of independent/Republican (voters') support.
Democrats purportedly have a long list of popular legislation dating back to the Obama admin that would have passed without McConnell blocking it from being voted on that they haven't really tapped since Republicans lost the Senate. Maybe there's some policies there he could implement.
|
United States42523 Posts
On July 03 2024 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:40 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.)
It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable.
There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose. What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific. Implement the most popular policy/policies his team has/can come up with that Republican politicians have prevented, ideally something that also has at least a bare majority of independent/Republican (voters') support. Democrats purportedly have a long list of popular legislation dating back to the Obama admin that would have passed without McConnell blocking it from being voted on that they haven't really tapped since Republicans lost the Senate. Maybe there's some policies there he could implement.
Your specific plan to prevent Trump from being elected seems to involve absolutely nothing to prevent Trump from being elected, though it also lacks any real specificity. Were anyone else to suggest something so mild you'd be the first to demand they admit their complicity in America's inevitable descent into fascism.
|
On July 03 2024 01:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:40 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments.
To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point.
This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose. What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific. Implement the most popular policy/policies his team has/can come up with that Republican politicians have prevented, ideally something that also has at least a bare majority of independent/Republican (voters') support. Democrats purportedly have a long list of popular legislation dating back to the Obama admin that would have passed without McConnell blocking it from being voted on that they haven't really tapped since Republicans lost the Senate. Maybe there's some policies there he could implement. Your specific plan to prevent Trump from being elected seems to involve absolutely nothing to prevent Trump from being elected, though it also lacks any real specificity. Were anyone else to suggest something so mild you'd be the first to demand they admit their complicity in America's inevitable descent into fascism.
To be clear, I was saying the minimum Biden has to do for him to not obviously lose, not guarantee Trump doesn't get elected.
|
The calls for Biden to step down are getting louder, not quieter.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) became the first sitting House Democrat to go public with a call for President Biden to step aside as party standard bearer in the aftermath of last week’s debate.
“I represent the heart of a congressional district once represented by Lyndon Johnson. Under very different circumstances, he made the painful decision to withdraw. President Biden should do the same,” he said in a statement.
nypost.com
|
On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something?
I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh
|
|
|
|
|
United States42523 Posts
On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh
Sure, but I still don't love it.
|
|
|
On July 03 2024 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:40 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.)
It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable.
There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose. What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific. Implement the most popular policy/policies his team has/can come up with that Republican politicians have prevented, ideally something that also has at least a bare majority of independent/Republican (voters') support. Democrats purportedly have a long list of popular legislation dating back to the Obama admin that would have passed without McConnell blocking it from being voted on that they haven't really tapped since Republicans lost the Senate. Maybe there's some policies there he could implement. Wouldn't that require the House? Which the Democrats do not have?
It would have to be by Executive Order and then you might aswell wait another month or 2 before doing to stop the courts from sticking them down before the actual election happens.
|
On July 03 2024 03:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:On July 02 2024 10:17 Zambrah wrote:
So like, do Democrats have any plans to deal with the state of things with the Supreme Court and the seeming rising tide of christo-fascistic nightmares, are they just sort of hoping they stop losing elections forever or do they have some sort of intention to do something about it They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.) It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable. There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh Sure, but I still don't love it.
Id also rather we didnt, and Im pretty certain Democrats wont under even the threat of Republican-led-Democracy-Removal, which is why Im reaaally concerned with what their plans are because I'd rather not see what Republicans are trying to set the stage for.
So like, surely Democrats must either have something in mind, or are coming up with something, surely?
|
|
|
United States42523 Posts
On July 03 2024 03:13 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:On July 02 2024 16:46 Severedevil wrote:
[quote]
They don't have to win forever. They have to win long enough to reshape the court. Clarence Thomas is 76. Alito is 74. Roberts is 69. Replace two and the court is sane again. Even replacing just one makes the court 5-4, allowing the least evil Republican to flip or soften a ruling. (IIRC Roberts used to do this frequently when the court was 5-4, and plenty of today's 6-3 rulings have a concurring "yes, but" where one of the justices wanted a less aggressive ruling.)
It's not infeasible to hold the presidency until 1-2 aging scumbags dies or retires. It's a shitty position, but it's winnable.
There's also the possibility of winning big once, and then expanding the court. Democratic politicians usually clutch their pearls at that sort of scandalous norm-breaking, but that may shift in the face of insane court rulings. The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments. To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point. This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh Sure, but I still don't love it. Id also rather we didnt, and Im pretty certain Democrats wont under even the threat of Republican-led-Democracy-Removal, which is why Im reaaally concerned with what their plans are because I'd rather not see what Republicans are trying to set the stage for. So like, surely Democrats must either have something in mind, or are coming up with something, surely?
There's very little that you can do to protect a democracy from its people once the courts have been captured. Turkey used to have the army that'd step in and stage a pro democratic coup from time to time but even they have been defanged now.
|
On July 03 2024 03:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:13 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 03:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments.
To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point.
This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh Sure, but I still don't love it. Id also rather we didnt, and Im pretty certain Democrats wont under even the threat of Republican-led-Democracy-Removal, which is why Im reaaally concerned with what their plans are because I'd rather not see what Republicans are trying to set the stage for. So like, surely Democrats must either have something in mind, or are coming up with something, surely? There's very little that you can do to protect a democracy from its people once the courts have been captured. Turkey used to have the army that'd step in and stage a pro democratic coup from time to time but even they have been defanged now.
So democracy is probably just done now in the US?
|
On July 03 2024 03:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:40 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:On July 02 2024 17:44 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
The life expectance of a 76 year old man is about 10 years. I would assume that surpreme court justices get the best of the best healthcare treatments.
To flip the court to sane, you would need two of those three to die. Mathing this out is hard, but it is not unlikely that this will take a dozen years. Meaning the democrats would have to not lose the presidency in the next three elections (doesn't sound likely), and the US will become increasingly more shitty until that point.
This sounds like a bad solution. This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked. I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? First, I'm certainly and obviously not claiming "nothing bad would result from ending democracy". Second, I clarified Biden wouldn't be "ending democracy" but "using his legal capacities within that democracy" Lastly, I said Biden using his legal capacities to do something massively popular would be less worse than handing the same legal capacities/power to Trump to do as he pleases with. You're too intelligent for you to be so blatantly strawmanning without doing it on purpose. What exactly is it that you're proposing Biden do to prevent the people electing Trump without ending democracy? To avoid me inadvertently strawmanning you by assuming your plan please make your plan specific. Implement the most popular policy/policies his team has/can come up with that Republican politicians have prevented, ideally something that also has at least a bare majority of independent/Republican (voters') support. Democrats purportedly have a long list of popular legislation dating back to the Obama admin that would have passed without McConnell blocking it from being voted on that they haven't really tapped since Republicans lost the Senate. Maybe there's some policies there he could implement. Wouldn't that require the House? Which the Democrats do not have? It would have to be by Executive Order and then you might aswell wait another month or 2 before doing to stop the courts from sticking them down before the actual election happens.
He's got a lot of new leverage over Congress. He can pass whatever he wants to pass.
On July 03 2024 03:21 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 03:13 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 03:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked.
I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism
What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh Sure, but I still don't love it. Id also rather we didnt, and Im pretty certain Democrats wont under even the threat of Republican-led-Democracy-Removal, which is why Im reaaally concerned with what their plans are because I'd rather not see what Republicans are trying to set the stage for. So like, surely Democrats must either have something in mind, or are coming up with something, surely? There's very little that you can do to protect a democracy from its people once the courts have been captured. Turkey used to have the army that'd step in and stage a pro democratic coup from time to time but even they have been defanged now. So democracy is probably just done now in the US?
Yup. Kinda takes the wind out of Biden's main campaign sail.
|
United States42523 Posts
On July 03 2024 03:21 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 03:13 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 03:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 02:35 Zambrah wrote:On July 03 2024 01:18 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2024 01:09 KwarK wrote:On July 03 2024 01:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2024 22:47 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
This is more or less where I land atm, if Trump loses this next election and becomes just completely and absolutely too old to win another election then with Democrats having such a barren talent pool I dont see them doing any better than our previous pattern of switching between Republican presidents and Democrat presidents, which means we'll just most probably be fucked.
I'd really like to know if the Democrats actually have anything special to do about this because a party who is focused on incremental change over a long period of time with a fixation on norms that prevents them from exercising power in the way their opponents do feels like one of the worst sorts of parties to have when fighting a rising tide of fascism
What's particularly interesting is that Democrats have all the power they need to do anything they want right now and they are refusing to exercise it while demanding people vote for them anyway. Biden has to exploit this ruling to do something massively popular or he's done for. Or he believes that the foreseeable damage caused by his own anti democratic seizure of power could be worse. You mean "using his legal capacities"? Worse than handing those "legal capacities" over to Trump? Obviously not. Why is it obvious to you that nothing bad would result from ending democracy in the US? It’s not obvious to me. Is it possible you’re overlooking something? I think the odds we get democracy back from Democrats are higher than the odds we get it back from Trump and the Republicans tbh Sure, but I still don't love it. Id also rather we didnt, and Im pretty certain Democrats wont under even the threat of Republican-led-Democracy-Removal, which is why Im reaaally concerned with what their plans are because I'd rather not see what Republicans are trying to set the stage for. So like, surely Democrats must either have something in mind, or are coming up with something, surely? There's very little that you can do to protect a democracy from its people once the courts have been captured. Turkey used to have the army that'd step in and stage a pro democratic coup from time to time but even they have been defanged now. So democracy is probably just done now in the US?
If Biden wins and restores justice to the courts then no. Otherwise kinda. Pretty good incentive to vote Biden tbh. The alternative is to wait for GH to do his revolution but I'm beginning to wonder if that'll ever happen.
|
I dont think the odds are great that Biden gets any Supreme Court appointees, and I dont think it likely that the Democrats win in 2028, which I think is when the Supreme Courts old Republican members will step down and let a Republican reappoint more nutters.
I have a hard time imagining the faction that is wielding power without regard for norms is going to let an RBG happen lol
So in the end Im having a hard time seeing a real path forward without Democrats having some sort of plan beyond "just vote for us and hope fascism happens later down the line I guess," which would be really disappointing given the potential stakes
https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-move-expand-supreme-court-trump-ruling-1919976
Rep. Hank Johnson, of Virginia, called on Congress to pass legislation that would expand the court from nine to 13 justices, as well as other legislation that would require justices to adopt a binding code of conduct. The judges adopted a code of conduct last year following sustained criticism over undisclosed gifts and trips to some justices, but it lacks any means of enforcement.
Aight, this is at least something, maybe if Biden wins and this doesnt fade into the background and Democrats have the balls to actually fucking do it if they get control of Congress we might have some modicum of hope for at least the immediate term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
