Sure glad so many people opted to nope out of voting at all in 2016 and 2024 and all because “I don’t care about politics” or if they did care about politics, they’d stay home because they were not presented with a perfect pretty pony and/or for single issues like gEnOcIdE jOe.
Really will never understand people who won’t vote (at least when its not super inconvenient like it can be? I think it can be for some idk)
I do feel like it was a blunder having Joe run again though.
at least when its not super inconvenient like it can be? I think it can be for some idk
Yeah, TBF, in my state - Colorado - voting is made very, very easy. I suppose the only way we might get even more turnout would be to have mandatory voting or voting via the Internet.
There are still Americans saying they don’t care about, or pay attention to, politics. How can they be this unaware of what’s happening in their own country?
Some live in states where the vote literally would not have changed anything.
You’re also arguing a negative to disprove. The statement implies more people voting would have had an alternative outcome, and that cannot be proven/disproven.
Votes say something, even if they don’t tip the state. They’re counted and the total is very much part of the election - whether popular vote was won is a “mandate.”
More importantly a lot of folks who voted “against Israel” (Kamala, who they seem to believe is responsible for 70 years of foreign policy) then snubbed Dems down the rest of the ballot too, and those races are important.
Splitting our vote over a war that’s been going on for millennia was exactly what the right wing wanted.
We lost in 2024 because of delusional thinking that we can bully people into voting for us. Convincing people to vote for your side starts with not being a rude pompous ass. It starts with not announcing that you know voter’s wishes and beliefs better than they do. If voters get a whiff that you feel that you are entitled to their vote, they will punish your side out of spite. You can whine about this fact of human nature, but your whining won’t help you win any elections. Elections have never been some dispassionate utilitarian balancing of policy platforms, and voters get annoyed when you pretend that they are.
Democrats lose when they forget that they’re supposed to represent voters first and foremost. This is why white progressives usually fail when they go into minority communities looking for their votes. They’ll try to brow beat racial minority communities. They’ll say, “surely, our policies of government programs and redistribution are in the best interests of your community!” while at the same time not really trying to represent the issues those folks actually care about. Maybe UBI would be a great boon for members of a racial minority group. But that doesn’t mean members of that group will vote for you, or that they have to. They may simply have other political priorities and would prefer politicians that will push for those priorities first. This is the difference between ruling and representing.
I have no doubt that attitudes like yours cost Democrats far more votes than the few progressives that actually stayed home. Your message is meant to browbeat people who are honestly almost always going to vote for your side anyway. But people who are more moderate see your message, see that you feel entitled to people’s votes, and vote against Democrats as a consequence.
The number one complaint people have about liberals is “liberal arrogance.” And this is a great example of the arrogance that causes Democrats to lose elections. You believe you’ve diagnosed all of society’s problems. You believe you know the solutions to them. You believe you have all the answers. When other people tell you that their priorities are different from yours, and so your balance of issues are different from there’s, you insult them, bully them, and try to shame them to vote for the Democratic candidate.
You are why Democrats lose elections. Your hubris dooms us all. It’s condescending. It infantilizes voters who have a different ethical system than you do. And ultimately it shows that you want to rule people, not represent them. Liberal arrogance in its purest form.
All I can say to that is that I hope people who didn’t vote or voted for republicans enjoy this outcome. Regardless of what anyone thinks when it comes to the general election, you are voting either for someone or against someone. If you don’t vote you’re saying that you’re perfectly fine with either option. The time to whine and be philosophical about candidates is during primaries which most people don’t even participate in. That’s how you can get your mythical perfect democrat.
Anyone who didn’t explicitly vote for a democrat this past election I’m blaming for what the GOP is doing. The democrats are feckless cowards, but they don’t accelerate everyone’s ruin and sometimes that’s the literal best outcome.
My mantra now is have the day you voted for. Not voting is implicitly voting for the winner. I hope that all the petulant people who sat out because their favorite wasn’t on the docket or voted red because they have some shiny single thing they care about is personally experiencing everything that the entirety of the GOP platform stands for. I truly wish that they get everything they voted for.
I don’t disagree with all of this.
Like a lot of what you’re saying is not arguable. But democrats lose for the same reason that republicans lose. Because the voter base is selfish, fickle, and tends to be driven by political trends which swing from “white liberal” left to the equivalent of that on the right.
The US will jump between trend driven politics and will vote for the person who meets the majority of people’s ideals.
If you have to vote perfectly every time or else you’ll lose your rights, they aren’t rights. They are privileges afforded to you by the ruling class in power. That clearly includes the Supreme Court. All this period in time is doing is reminding us we aren’t actually free people.
Maybe we’re closer to Yeoman than Serfs, but unless you have real money, you aren’t a part of the team.
No
The 2024 election basically has no impact on the Supreme Court.
Yet. Expect Trump to “ask” Thomas and Alito to step down so he can replace them the way he did Kennedy and lock in a 6-3 majority for the rest of our lifetimes.
For folks who don’t know the Kennedy angle:
Not enough people know about how fucking sick and gross the Kennedy retirement was. Between nepotism and blackmail. Thanks for spreading the word.
If Democrats are ever able to win again they need to expand and pack the Court. However, that was already true before 2024 and they refused and if they had won in 2024 they would continue to refuse. Democrats do not take this threat seriously.
Kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. The only way Democrats would ever consider packing the Court is if the Court was hopelessly rigged against them (even more than it already was, I mean) but by the very fact that the Court is rigged they might not ever be allowed to win another election because a 6-3 Court would probably let Trump cancel elections.
Basically the whole system is fucked. Tear it down.
Packing the court isn’t an option unless you also make it impossible for anyone else to pack the court.
Let’s say a Democrat wins in '28 and decides to expand the court from 9 to 13. +4. That flips the 6-3 majority to a 7-6 majority.
The next elected Republican will just expand it to 15, flipping it back.
We could lock it in with a Constitutional Amendment saying that the Supreme Court must be made up of one member from each Circuit Court, of which there are currently 13. The numbered courts 1-11, plus DC and the Fed.
Maybe even add age limits and term limits while we’re at it.
But man, the bar on an amendment is too high to pass now. 2/3rds of the House and Senate, then ratification from 38 states.
True, but I see two solutions.
-
Pack the Court and then use the packed Court to dismantle the Republican Party so they can never win again.
-
Make every US adult a Supreme Court member and let them all vote on cases. Just turn it into a direct democracy.
Not opposed to option 1, but I’d rather see it being part of the RICO act, round them all up as domestic enemies of the Constitution.
Option 2 may be worse than what we have currently. 🤣 You’d have people with no knowledge of the law making legal decisions and in a way where they are completely uninformed.
You want “Idiocracy”? Because that’s how you get “Idiocracy”. 😉
-
Depends on if Roberts decides to retire or if Sotomayor dies. We’ll get another whack job if either of those things happens. Not saying Roberts isn’t a whack job, but he’s about the most moderate conservative on the court right now. (God help me, Barret is a close second).
No way he doesn’t get replace with someone like Aileen Cannon.
Alito or Thomas retiring will be a wash. Alito has said he’ll retire, so expect that to happen in the next 3 years. But honestly, I highly doubt there’s anyone as crooked as he is so it doesn’t really matter.
If Trump convinces Thomas and Alito to retire the way he did Kennedy, that gives him 5 Supreme Court picks and locks in a 6-3 majority for the rest of our lives.
It’s already a 6-3 Court, it functionally doesn’t matter if Sotomayor dies at this point. Roberts being the most moderate right-wing voice on the Court functionally doesn’t matter either, because they can still do 5-4 extreme rulings without him.
The Court is fucked for decades unless it is expanded.
Fuck these uncaring pieces of shit.
Uncaring?
You really think they don’t care how they ruin people’s lives?
Quite the contrary. They relish in the suffering. The cruelty, as always, is the point.
Fuck them sideways with a Guillotine.
Fuck them sideways with a Guillotine.
Bone Tomahawk these fuckers!
P.S., don’t look up the scene this is referencing. It’s very NSFL.
But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.
Or, you know, because people should be able to choose who they marry. Wait, that actually applies to deciding whether to have children too!
They are similar, but she has the logic backwards. People should be able to marry who they want and have abortions because people should be able to choose for themselves.
That aside, there are SO MANY RIGHTS that come with being married that you actively deny LGBTQ couples when you deny them marriage.
For example:
Did you know that in a court case, your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you? Speech between spouses is protected at the same level as lawyer/client or priest/penitent.
I am 100% aware of all the benefits.
Also, like the priest/lawyer/etc. there is an exception to the privilege if the spouse is an participant in crime.
I wonder if they used this logic, if people who wanted an abortion within the time frame of the ruling and finding out they were pregnant could sue.
Like - I had already conceived before your ruling on Roe vs Wade, so that decision was made based off existing laws, so I should have been allowed the abortion.
Sue for the entire cost of raising those children.
If only there were no such thing as religion, same sex marriage probably wouldn’t be as much of an issue or not even be an issue at all.
Many ancient cultures such as romans and greeks where very chill with gay people, hecj they had a lot of gay people, gay emperors and even a trans girl as emperor! Then christianity came in and…
Edut: i was wrong with Elegabus(the trans emperor)
No offense but this is so oversimplified so as to be borderline lying. The other guy noted the whole Elegabulus thing but I will note that being a top was fine in Roman culture while being a bottom was a no no. It’s to do with dominance and Roman gender norms, may I suggest the Sacred Band of Thebes instead since they were pretty chill with their gayness.
To be fair, Elegabalus was distinctly Syrian in upbringing and religion, and his trans-ness was not accepted by the general Roman public at all. It was one of the main reasons his grandmother had him and his mother (her own daughter!) assassinated in order to crown his nephew Alexander the new emperor.
My bad
Never apologize for learning new things ;)
Lookup Marc Maron humble stupid.
I like you. You’re what was right in the world.
Or abortion, or feeding the hungry, or helping the homeless, or universal healthcare…
We must be living in a Scary Door episode where governments regulate entities which impact the few rather than those that impact the many.
When you read the article, it’s just that there is an appeal that’s unlikely to get picked up. Headline seems a bit hysterical.
Yeah just like they weren’t going to pick up Roe v Wade right?
They said that over and over too lol
“Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. We all know that.”
- Chris Collins, R - N.Y.
“I think the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned is very minimal. I don’t see that happening, truly I don’t see that happening.”
- Joni Ernst, R - Iowa
“Well, I don’t think anybody is going to overturn Roe v. Wade … it’s a settled opinion … I doubt seriously that that’s really a legitimate concern.”
- Orrin Hatch, R - Utah
I could go on and on… Now they’re saying the exact same things about same sex marriage
Fool me once, shame on… shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.
Keep the government closed until it’s gone for good. The US federal government is beyond worth saving. Let’s start over
This is such a nonstarter, as Gorsuch was the one who wrote the opinion on Bostock. He’s strong on LGBT rights. So there’s a solid 5 with him, Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, and Roberts.
Don’t worry. They will support the spirit of gay rights but will vote it down on a technicality they invent.
Seems they rejected it outright. As suspected.
Thank goodness.
