• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    625
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    The statement:

    The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.

    Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.

    I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.

    This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.

    Doesn’t matter if it works, it’s trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we’ll keep fucking trying till we do.

    Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        217
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…

        We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.

        People as a whole are more politically aware than I’ve ever seen, but we’re just wasting it.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          62
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They’ve had a head start on us, so it’s going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they’ve created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            57
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            3 months ago

            We actually don’t.

            A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.

            It’s literally that easy to take over the party.

            Obama just didn’t do it because he didn’t need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.

            If he’d have rebuilt it, we’d have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn’t have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.

            It’s not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.

            By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH’s delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.

            If we’d have had the fight then, we’d have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.

            But we didn’t.

            Until we finally do, shit won’t change.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can’t fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that’s still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.

                The stereotypical nerd.

                Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.

                But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it

                Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn’t in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn’t, same with most of the current Dem leadership.

                So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn’t have Gore’s back either. And Gore wasn’t confident enough to try it without the party.

                It’s crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.

                  He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.

            • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              We’ve had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.

              I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn’t disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn’t disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn’t stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.

          • Psycoder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.

            Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Do you think the ownership class was upset when AOC voted to stop the rail union from striking?

        • Psycoder@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.

          Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)

            What we don’t have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say “see we aren’t all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!” (Because there’s only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…

          We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.

          I’d be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        80
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I want AOC with vice president Bernie.

        That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.

        • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          35
          ·
          3 months ago

          I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.

      • Kalkaline @leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn’t just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she’s got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          37
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So, not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties…

          … those aren’t missteps?

          and they still got the deal they wanted in the end

          Is it in the fucking contract? no? Then they got jack shit.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties…

            Conservatives (including Manchin and Sinema) stopped all of that. I hate the Dem party and despise neoliberals (AKA the other conservatives), but conservatives are fully to blame for those specific issues.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                3 months ago

                You don’t get a choice where you get a progressive instead of Manchin. You get Manchin or a far right Republican. I voted for Manchin, for the same reason I voted for Clinton and Biden - they might suck, but holy shit is the alternative WORSE.

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                This thread is about AOC. You forgot which Democratic party figure you were supposed to be railing on in this thread.

                I hope you understand that it will be reflected on your next performance review.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  for the record, I think I must have replied to the wrong thing in my notifications. deleted my comment. (however, I do stand by my criticism of Biden. AoC on the other hand would be freaking phenomenal.)

                  (by the way. not a fucking bot. might want to hone that paranoia of yours.)

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              24
              ·
              3 months ago

              I’m not the one waiving a magic wand thinking Biden is a perfect candidate.

              You are.

              As I’ve said elsewhere, baring Biden himself stepping down it’s suicide for any one to oppose him. So no I’m not going to enter that fucking argument with someone who can’t even see what’s clearly before them.

              Especially considering I’m guessing you give credit for the American recovery act to Biden even as you’d scramble to insist Biden doesn’t have the power to pass law.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  firstly, I’m not a bot.

                  Secondly, what I really want is to stop the slow slid into Fascism. Biden is, in my opinion, demonstrably incapable or unwilling of doing that. You’re welcome to share your opinions, and we can have a discussion about it. Though, also in my opinion, you don’t like hearing alternative viewpoints, considering the name calling and accusations.

                  EDIT: Third, I already have. the argument goes no where. Before the primary it was “Save it for the primary,” during the primary it was “Don’t undermine the incumbent, you idiot”, in now its “name your candidate”. in 2019 it was “learn to compromise”. I’m not interestedin the argument because you- or people like you- are unwilling to listen. Biden is problematic. but you’re not going to be able to shore up his election campaign by digging your head in the sand.

                  Other “missteps”? Gaza and Immigration feature prominently, too.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Do you understand how Congress functions? Do you think they’re fucking dukes and duchesses or some shit?

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              You apparently don’t understand the difference between being a dictator and actually getting off your ass to stir up support for something.

              stop acting like biden is powerless because one body of congress is in republican hands. biden is not powerless. If Biden is so powerless to get shit done in congress, how is it he claims credit for the American Recovery Act and the other big ones early term? that’s right. He did some lifting for it. (he was, however, far from the only person, and a lot of people did a lot of heavy lifting to get that done.)

              • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Have you seen the Republican Congress?

                Trying to get anything through them is like preschoolers playing Red Rover against the New England Patriots.

                I’m not saying they don’t try. It’s important to try, as long as they immediately call out the opposition at any and every opportunity. And loud. But if it comes from a D, fat chance actually getting it passed.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s the thing though, with the Republicans in charge there will NEVER be a vote on this. They won’t allow it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah. But it’s provocative, it gets the people going.

        That translates to more voters and more small donors.

        Two things that are kind of important 4 months before a general election.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          People will call this sort of thing performative since the legislation will be dead in the water, but you’re spot on. An important part of politics is virtue signaling. You’re telling your supporters what you stand for and that you’re at least trying.

          Whether it’s progressive or moderates doing so, it’s an important political tool, and sometimes the only tool at their disposal. Showing people you’re willing to fight, even if you know you’re going to lose, is a big deal.

      • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The minority party has seized control by eroding the foundation of democracy. The sad part is that most people don’t even realize how fucked we are.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      91
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing. There’s literally no other way to win here if somebody else steps in. Sad that people try to do good in their job as a public representative for their people, and just fucking can’t.

      Edit to say: don’t just take my word for it. Ask Bernie Sanders. Did he win the presidency at some point? I just must have…,…

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        91
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing

        Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.

        AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it’s easier the second time around.

        Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.

        And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too “polarizing” right up till election results.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I’m still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I’m not sure I can. I’d sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn’t drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s because Obama was polarizing, but he sold himself as progressive convincingly

          He literally ran on the promise of change - unfortunately his actions were firmly neo liberal, and he prioritized compromise over meaningful reform

          If Obama was a neo liberal in progressive clothing, Clinton was a diehard neo liberal from top to bottom.

          Unfortunately, the lesson learned was “people don’t like Hillary” rather than “people want a real progressive”

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t understand your point… Obama won two presidential elections in a row. It would seem as though that "selling himself as a progressive convincingly worked out pretty well for him id say.

            So you’re saying that the people want a progressive candidate, but the Dems would, at most, give us the option of someone who sells themselves as progressive but is an actual neo-liberal?

            Oh, maybe I do get it after all. I was going to say that Gore was pretty progressive and did technically win, but that was 25 years agola

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          3 months ago

          There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now. Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now

            What?

            Literally what’s how what works?

            Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

            Fair and open primaries, mate.

            I’ve been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.

            Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain’t exactly a new problem, and it’s not like no one can think of a solution.

            It’s just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they’re too exhausted to care about politics.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        She’s not polarising. The oligarchy controlled media that constantly paint her as some kind of radical are polarising.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            48
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            3 months ago

            Have you seen what they say about Joe Biden?

            They’d call trump Joseph Stalin if there was a D by his name.

            It literally doesn’t matter how progressive a candidate we run, because they’ll say the same shit about anyone.

            Moderates try to defend and talk about how conservative they really are. Alienating their voters. AOC would fucking own that shit and explain how it helps everyone.

            What we’re doing isn’t working. And Biden himself keeps saying he’s powerless as president, so why not fucking try what worked for literal decades and there was no rational reason we ever stopped?

          • TopRamenBinLaden
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Obama was that bogeyman from 2008 to 2016. Considering that he won two elections during that time, I don’t think Fox News is really relevant to AOC.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          Repubs have spent decades feeding propaganda to their fear-addicted voting base. And they’re still squawking away with Fox and Sinclair. I’d love to see her run but I’m not certain it would be successful.

        • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because entrenched Democrats are under a ridiculous belief that everyone who isn’t voting for them is conservative. So if you spout “extreme” leftist ideals, you’re too scary to the people they are courting, which is conservative voters who aren’t Trumplicans.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        because she’s too polarizing.

        She shares a lot of views with Bernie Sanders, and Berni would almost surely have defeated Trump where Hillary failed.
        As I see it, she is not nearly as polarizing as Trump. The only ones strongly against her, are probably extreme Christians and Nazis.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          3 months ago

          Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They’d have smeared him worse than Clinton.

          • Rookwood@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That’s the thing about Bernie. He’s hard to smear. Unlike, “my husband cheated on me while serving as President” Hillary. You’re delusional.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              The fact that they didn’t take the time to really try to smear him doesn’t mean he’s hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don’t directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn’t get out.

              Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don’t have to be true. Often they aren’t. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            31
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            That doesn’t really make her polarizing, that’s just the right wing media treating her unfairly, as they do with every progressive Democrat, except a bit more, because she is popular.

            • just_another_person@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              32
              ·
              3 months ago

              No, it makes her polarizing because the viewers of certain media thinks she’s a fucking liberal who will literally sweep your house, take you gums, sell them, and give the profit to "illegals’.

              This was a literal interpretation about her from ImfoWars. It’s a fucking thing. She won’t win.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                29
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                People who follow infowars are already radicalized, and will say any moderate is polarizing. They want a Fuhrer, they want to exterminate LGBT and colored people. Their opinion is irrelevant, because there is no talking sense to those people. Just see how the MAGA people threw a fit, because their house leader “compromised” after 8 months of negotiating, and getting everything they asked for!!!
                They are beyond reach, and they are the ones polarizing, not rational sensible people like AOC, that actually tries to make life better for most people.

                If not only wanting to do things for the rich, the white and Christians, makes you polarizing, then a polarizing candidate is the only reasonable option.

              • ultranaut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                20
                ·
                3 months ago

                Literally, anyone who threatens the interests served by right-wing media is going to see themselves transformed into a bogeyman by right-wing media. That’s how it works. That AOC is “polarizing” according to them is because of the threat she poses to them. If you’re letting right-wing media define the boundaries of who is an acceptable candidate, you will never defeat them.

              • John Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                That is why she’d be so successful. She’d give them strokes. She’d get constant media coverage. They would give her so much publicity the news would always be about her. She’s good looking and talks well. She’d look badass in the White House.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        3 months ago

        IMHO, the only reason she’s “polarizing” is because the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her. People like her are a threat to them. She’s young, smart, and charming. She’s like Obama once was, only she’s even younger than he was. She’s still a year too young to run.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her

          And they run smear campaigns on EVERYONE with a D in front of their name, regardless of how far to the left they actually are. Democrats are playing a losing game by worrying about how the Republican media are going to portray them.

          • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just saying that she has extra appeal and potential, so that why she gets extra attention by the right wing media.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Their screaming means nothing anymore. Conservative media will panic-attack absolutely anyone who runs against the GOP with the exact same extreme deception and conspiracy theories.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I really don’t think that’s true. People said the same with Obama, and he really never faced that in voters, the GOP was viciously attacking him and it never stuck. There is a stage big enough, that the most vicious attackers do get lost in the crowd.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over “obamacare”. No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing.

        She’ll never make it through the primaries because she’s a progressive.

      • Psycoder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You must be quite young. Everything you are saying about AOC was said, word for word, for Obama. Obama still won.

      • Xerxos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Bernie would have won (according to polls) if the DNC hadn’t sabotaged him at every turn. Too polarizing? No, just too left for the Democrats.

  • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    327
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      99
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

      1. Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.

      2. Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

      They’re already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Go. Start some research, and head out. Many countries you can just enter. Call it a vacation for the first year and see if you like it.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It wasn’t a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.

          • Kecessa
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            But the president has the power to tell the army “Don’t do shit” in complete impunity.

            • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                3 months ago

                Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don’t serve to shoot their own country. Countries don’t want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won’t support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.

                • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Did you see the police step on people during the blm 2020 marches? They have no problem being fascists

              • Kecessa
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                We’re talking about people rising against the Republican side of the government

          • Saledovil
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Eh, Iraq and Afghanistan went rather poorly for the United States.

              • Saledovil
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                Second amendment grants the right to bear arms, arms were used by the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  What does Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with America and taking arms up against our government? You really think a bunch of hillbillies with guns are going to do shit against our military?

      • Saledovil
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Option 2 is suicide. I guess that’s it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even mind since they’re the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it’s a small price to pay for democracy.

      • Corkyskog
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean he would certainly make a mark as one of the most interesting president’s yet by doing so…

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Short of federal troops literally kicking down doors as oFFiCiAl aCtS it won’t happen. The Republicans want their dictatorship and they’re not going to vote against it.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Still. This wild “acting in the public’s interests” thing will get more progressives in positions to make such a thing even possible.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    124
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Like seriously, I’m tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It’s better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.

    • rozodru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      think you Americans are beyond a peaceful protest at this point, right now you need a revolution. you are quite literally 4 months away from a potential dictatorship.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        So you can have a revolution with a peaceful protest. The problem is that requires a general strike to go with it to entirely cripple the economy. And Americans are obviously still too fat and happy to even do that.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Good luck with that, the fans of the potential dictators have most of the guns, law enforcement is packed with fascists, etc…

        (Although I agree.)

    • VirtualOdour
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      You could get involved in campaigning for a Democrat running in a local senate race, actually get involved in politics and work for change

    • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      why don’t you go learn about using firearms and secure communication networks instead? protests accomplish nothing. protests get you put on lists for when the authoritarians really take over.

    • FatCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      64
      ·
      3 months ago

      A few more peaceful protests is sure to fix things in a giffie!

      💩💯💯

      • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        3 months ago

        Peaceful protests build the sense of consensus and unity. Violent solutions can’t succeed without both popular support and enough participants to make a difference, but if everybody’s scared of standing alone they’re doomed. Sudden upheaval is likely to make more people oppose the change, because most people like stability.

        Peaceful protests that get gradually more frustrated are more likely to support more drastic measures than a sudden upheaval. Whether or not you believe peaceful protests will fix anything, they’re the best solution that’s viable right now.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I live in Russia, I’m having flashbacks of explanations why all the opposition is doing is peaceful protests.

          Nah, it doesn’t work. The faster you get to throwing Molotov cocktails, the better.

          • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If it’s five people throwing them, they’re terrorists. If it’s five million, they’re a problem. (Depending on the size of country and military, I’m pulling numbers out my arse to exemplify a point, not as accurate measures).

            Numbers matter. If you have enough people on your side and willing to join the throwing for your cocktails to make a difference, that might work for you. But if most of the populace are scared to lose more than they stand to gain, you’ll end up with the brave throwers arrested or killed, the media denouncing their “undemocratic” acts and possibly the people even more afraid to do anything.

            Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It’s hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you’ll end up another failed insurrection.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              The bad guys know this too, they’ll penetrate your organization (if it’s decentralized, they’ll still poison it with plenty of agents, they’ve got taxpayers’ money), they’ll use your inaction to communicate apathy, they’ll even have something false flag to still cause the effect you’re describing without real people using force. And their media doesn’t need anything real to happen to report it.

              Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It’s hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you’ll end up another failed insurrection.

              Not hard for a government, no. Anything predictable and organized will not succeed. As chaotic and brave as possible or not at all.

              • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                As chaotic and brave as possible or not at all.

                That’s sounds accurate for Russia, but could it be that different strategies remain possible in the US? The US could be on it’s way to be a totalitarian state like Russia, but it’s not there yet, and still has a lot of (flawed) democratic institutions. I think in the US you can still protest without being put in jail.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I don’t think so, because what I said didn’t mention anything about already having totalitarianism. The means today’s governments have at their disposal allow to achieve most of things done by classic 30s totalitarian regimes without visible violence.

        • BuckenBerry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Peaceful protests are really only effective if they are seen as an alternative to more militant groups.

          Martin Luther King non violence wouldn’t have been that popular if it wasn’t seen as an alternative for Malcolm X’s more radical ideology.

          I’m pretty sure something similar occurred with the suffrage movement but I didn’t remember the details.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they’re always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.

    • Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.

    • Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can’t get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.


    Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it’s too important:

    Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we’re not fucked. I really do. The past three days I’ve gone into detail about how I think we’re fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I’ve yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.

    There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.

    Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I’ve so far seen:

    Post-Debate: “72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively.”

    Post-Debate: “64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot”; that’s more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.

    Post-Debate: “Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country”

    Post-Debate: “Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance”

    Post-Debate Focus Group: “Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate”

    Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: “‘I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump’: Undecided voters react to Biden’s debate performance”

    Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: “Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates’ rancorous debate last week”

    Nate Silver of 538’s Model: “Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night.”

    Post-Debate Poll: “Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket”

    Let’s face reality:

    To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I’ve thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, “Americans like new shit.”

    So I don’t know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let’s recap:

    We can downplay all we want, but this wasn’t “one bad debate,” for it wasn’t even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden’s senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he’s mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.

    • Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
    • Biden’s performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary’s losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
    • There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden’s condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.

    If I was a Republican strategist, I’d be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he’d be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.

    Now if you agree with this and you say, “okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?” then we’ll move on to that.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Cause democrats are not a unified faction.

      Democrats are basically 15 different political parties shoved under the same umbrella.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        15 factions = mostly AIPAC recipients.

        That lobby group primarily funded by Republicans.

      • Dinsmore
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        You’re not wrong, but so are Republicans. That’s the nature of a 2-party system and why it basically doesn’t work.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yes, beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting and ideological purity testing. Most Democrats are terrified of taking stances on wedge issues because any stance they take could break up a coalition that has all the durability of a Faberge egg. Republicans either don’t have this problem, or they don’t have it as bad. Despite having as many if not more factions than the Left, they all value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which allows them to come together every 4 years to form a unified voting bloc.

    • bassad@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Keep in mind that kremlin still runs massive campaigns to make you think Biden will loose and is unable to run the country.

      But he is not alone, this is not a monarchy, there is a full team behind him to make great things for the country.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is all easily remedied. Biden just needs to put out a bounty on Trump’s head. Totally legal move.

    • figaro@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      While I understand what you mean, we also have to recognize that doing that would 100% give trump the election. Splitting the votes is not what we want to do.

    • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Nate Silver of 538’s Model

      Small clarification, Nate is no longer part of 538. He got laid off by ABC out of nowhere a year or two ago. He does his own thing, 538 has a different person at the helm for the model (Morris).

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 months ago

      They are not gun shy. This is all theater. Every time you hear a massive lie or act you are supposed to believe that it is just incompetence.

      When Biden wanted those weapons to israel to commit Genocide all these principles went out of the window.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    3 months ago

    DO IT! DO IT NOW! You have to show them the checks and balances. There is no god king, there is no one that is not accountable for their actions. Impeach every single one that was nominated by him. Illegitimate court.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      The president cannot impeach them unilaterally, and is explicitly out of his power.

      He could, however, potentially send them to a blacksite as a prisoner or conveniently kill them as part of that arrest. They could claim collusion with domestic terror groups, espionage, corruption, etc, as very plausible justification for arrest, and that would probably qualify as official duties, at least how this SCOTUS would classify the same actions if executed by a republican president.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean… in his place I’d probably make them think I was going to do it to see if it would change their mind.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s because the sad fact of the matter is that both of our political parties are working together to fuck us.

      I don’t know how else to interpret this.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s much more obvious that one party cares about decorum no matter what is going on.

        • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh thank god for decorum.

          Glad to hear that one party is playing by imagined rules and that the other party is playing by what is actually written.

          Good thing that we’re getting fucked either way.

          I don’t think that many people have realized this yet, but we are all fucked no matter who is in office.

          It’s very evident that nothing is getting better no matter who from our two choices is in charge.

          I’m actually losing weight (that I don’t need to lose) because the cost of living is too high. I’ve had to start working more, and it’s barely helping.

          Thank the good lord that the DNC is following decorum though. So glad that they’re being polite while we are being absolutely fucked.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I wasn’t implying it was a good thing, just the explanation of why they don’t get more done.

            That said, they have improved a few things. It just isn’t as much as we need. Insulin, for example, is in a much better place, and that should be expanding to cover more drugs. Thr democrats are significantly better than the Republicans. They are not both the same. They just aren’t as good as we deserve.

            • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I’m sorry to vent at you. It wasn’t really meant to be directed at you. I’m just very frustrated.

              My girlfriend is a diabetic, and insulin is indeed more affordable. It still costs her about $120 a month for something that costs pennies to produce.

              My real point though, is that it doesn’t matter who is in power. Things are getting dramatically worse every year no matter who is in the White House.

              The Supreme Court is obviously completely fucked. They literally made it legal for them to be bribed. And they are not elected by citizens, and also have a lifetime appointment.

              There is nothing that we as citizens can legally do to curb their power. We are quite literally at their mercy, and they are not being merciful.

              And I haven’t even touched on our actual real long-term problems.

    • experbia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      is biden better than trump? yes. am I voting biden? yes, there’s no other real option. is he a feckless snivelling coward that only cares about people if they offer him a chance for power? yes. does he actually intend to do anything to improve our country and stave off a christofascist totalitarian takeover? hell no he doesn’t lmao

      he won’t do a good god damn thing if the corporations who have their fists up his ass don’t force him to, and they don’t give a shit about any of this because when it all turns red come inauguration day, regulations and protections will be stripped away and they’ll have no restriction on how they can abuse us and our planet for their own gain.

      he has this new power, and just like with the power he holds now, he won’t do anything with it that will actually move the needle and improve quality of life for anyone unless it serves his interest. the next guy will use it though. bend over, y’all.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Big tough guy on the internet, but let’s see how you feel when Trump’s brown shirts are knocking on doors to check if you’re harboring any trans people…

        I wish I was joking, but be prepared because this shit can happen fast. Then maybe you’ll think back on this election and wonder what could have happened if all you stupid motherfuckers would just shut the fuck up and vote for Biden.

        “Wahhh we had four years to choose a better candidate and we did FUCKING NOTHING. Now we’re looking literal fascism in the face and we’re suddenly all concerned about who our presidential candidates are.” You know we have a whole process for this, right? It doesn’t start 5 months before the election.

        It’s so fucking juvenile. We get it, you’re not going to vote. Stop spreading your cancer.

        • experbia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          We get it, you’re not going to vote

          not at all what I said. you have terrible reading comprehension. I specifically said I’m voting Biden.

      • Time
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Jesus dude at that point just vote for someone else 💀

        • experbia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          if you’re not American, I would understand that to be a reasonable suggestion. not how it works here, though.

          under our system of voting, third party votes are less than worthless. I would rather that not be the case, but here we are.

          If you’re American or if you’re not simply ignorant of that fact, I assume you’re salivating at the idea of getting a reluctant biden voter to vote third party to help secure your authoritarian party win.

          • Time
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Authoritarian party win? Do you even know who I was going to vote for? I guess any third party means authoritarian to you? No, and its not just Biden voters, its people who vote for Trump as well. We all need to pick a different canadite now. I’d personally vote for Chase Oliver.

            You may think that’s how the system works, but at it’s root, you can pick other choices, not just one or the other. The more you say that, the more real it becomes, and the more hopeless you make everyone else feel. You have a very nuanced view of how everything works and what type of person I am.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          The system is set up to only have two options. It’s intentional. Also the VP used to be the party that lost. That’s how much it matters to vote after the parties pick a nominee.

          • Time
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The founding fathers said a two party system would be the downfall of this country, so no, its not intentional.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Here me out: Supreme Court justices, Seal Team 6, official act. You don’t even have to pack the Court any more.

    • MiDaBa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah but the immunity ruling could be overturned by a future Supreme Co… Oh, I see now.

        • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          This isn’t really anything new since whenever executive orders became a thing. With executive orders, a president can start a war or force the entire population to stay home or wear masks in public. I think it’s way too much power and needs to be scaled back big time. But here we are anyway.

          • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It’s funny you say how insurrection is fine when one side does it meanwhile January 6th was a literal coup attempt that has been downplayed by every politician involved.

            All those present are given slaps on the wrist while the masterminds behind it remain in power with no repercussions whatsoever to the point the main leader of the coup was just given fucking immunity to commit domestic terrorism and act like a fuckin king.

            So yeah it would be perfectly fine if Biden called for the assassination of not only Trump but every current sitting scotus member and whatever congressman he deems fit for execution.

            • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              January 6 is not even close to the same league as assassination of political rivals and overthrowing the Supreme Court, and if you think it is then you are either insane or are willfully blinded by partisanship.

                • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not sure exactly what they were trying to do on Jan 6, but the fact nobody had guns, there was no clear plan, and it didn’t even come close to working, makes it significantly less of a problem than straight up murder of the opposition and the entire government. Actually not sure why I’m even having this conversation. You have to be either insane or trolling me.

      • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Better than what will actually happen- fail to use powerful new tool for presidential oppression, watch the other side use it, surprise pikachu, hand wringing, impotent mewling, get sent to death camps for failing to salute your neighborhood God emperor proxy fast enough.

      • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s never fine, but at this point we’re just arguing over which direction the national corpse collapses. Insurrection is more what happened before this point.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          No choice. If only one side is violent, the other side will lose. It’s a slippery slope, but play even or lose.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            3 months ago

            Since the side doing most the violence is on the left I would say that more violence is the opposite of what we want.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s okay, I get my lefts and my rights confused when my head is up my ass, too.

              • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                If you look at 2020 and 2021 was when the most violence was, and that was almost all from the left. I dont really know what part of that doesnt make sense.

                • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s irrelevant to the topic of politic parties. One party is eroding US democracy för seemingly the sole purpose of fattening their owners, the fossil fuel industry, and the other party wants to pretend this isn’t happening.

                  Neither party is left

  • tea@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.

    I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:

    1. Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.

    2. Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).

    3. Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.

    4. Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.

    5. Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it’ll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.

    6. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.

    7. (edit) I can’t believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following “official acts” or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.

    While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago
      1. Yes please.

      2. The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.

      3. You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.

        • Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
      4. This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.

      5. Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I’m not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.

      6. I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮‍💨

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago
        1. fair point, agreed. I typically like things that move with changing times so the same logic works in 100, 200 years. Ages are more static than dollar amounts. Not tying the gas tax or minimum wage to inflation or cost of living has put us in a major bind, which is what I was thinking about.

        2. Let them play that game (and hopefully get caught). Better than the in-the-open shit they do now. At least try

        3. I’d rather it not specify so we can play around changing it with laws instead of having it hard coded in the constitution. There are ones that I like even more than straight ranked choice. Just get rid of the EC, though maybe just dictating ranked choice would be the right move.

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is a “should happen” list not a “will happen” or “could happen” list. No delusions here, just felt good to say it out loud, given today’s news. I’d also take that unicorn. My kids would go bananas.

      • erp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        General Mills added unicorn marbits in 2018, so this sounds appropriate!