So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try? This type of attitude leads directly to voter apathy and the election of fascists like Trump.
As for traitors like Sinema, I'm old enough to remember a time when legislative holdouts would be pressured by the national party. The president should call her out by name and run rallies in her district. Cut off her funding, strain her ties with her donors, make her a pariah in the party.
It is so sad how the Democrat party has calcified this "rotating villain" logic into its foundation. It's something that needs to be purged from the party if we want a party that's actually controlled by the voters and not by corporate interests.
So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try?
They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.
So go ahead and tell me what your plan would've been; I'm listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it's far worse-off, because holy shit, we're talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it's unfathomably worse than what's already happening, and I will also tell you that "well it totally wouldn't have happened with better voting rights!!" is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn't have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.
Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can't strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)
The only reason either party has to maintain the filibuster is precedent, to restrain the other party the next time the other party wins. If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again, then what's stopping them from getting rid of it themselves, right now even?
Because you will always have a risk people voting out the party in power when you have very bad election year like post bush 2008, and then democrats would pass universal Medicare, raise minimum wage, could pass abortion law federally, and everything they don't like. And they know that a lot of it would be popular once it's in place and be harder to get rid of. It works both ways and it rewards centrists.
No the issue is Republicans/their voters have been consistent in their shitty behavior. It builds up and gets things done for them
Every two years Democrats go to the polls, maybe, and then throw up their hands when everything isn't fixed, demand new politicians and continue to argue amongst themselves as the left has always done because it's not about fixing things, it's about being the more correct liberal/socialist/whatever else you wanna be. And the cycle repeats.
It matters because the left wants representation, but the Dems have never allowed them to even have a scrap. Just look at how not a single one came out in support of Mamdani till the literal last second when they figured they could maybe get a few lefty brownie points cause they figured we wouldn't notice. Even a centrist like Sanders had the entire party work against him so the right winger Hillary could take the nomination.
If nothing can be fixed even with that much power, then it seems to me that the system is fundamentally broken and has no capacity to repair itself.
If you internalize that and put your back against the wall, then you may find that the position of commander-in-chief of the most expensive military in the world, with control of an incredibly powerful intelligence apparatus, provides quite a bit more power than a half-dozen senior citizens in robes.
You want my plan? Wait for a good time, like, right after the decision about overturning Roe v Wade was leaked, and have the justices arrested for corruption (it's not as though they aren't horribly corrupt, after all). Then, all you have to do is wait for them to decide to hang themselves at the exact same time that multiple cameras on the cell fail and the guards are off taking a nap together, you know, one of those funny coincidences like what happened with Epstein.
You don't like that approach? You come up with plan. We're the ones who don't believe in the system. If there's no legal answer to your question, then doesn't that just prove that extralegal means are the only way?
We've been laying out what is to be done for over 100 years, but liberals want an echo chamber that soothes their cognitive dissonance, they want confirmation bias to the things they already support.
Could you provide a good book or website that outlines the plan to migrate a modern capitalist country to whatever it is youre proposing? It would probably help if you also had some information about what you think the ideal alternative is.
You don't even have any thoughts to terminate. You're literally being asked to express them, and you're dodging the question because clearly you have no thoughts to speak of.
I would also point out that Obama and the dems back then could have given us Universal Healthcare but instead gave us the ACA and passed it off as a huge victory.
It was indeed a huge victory for insurance companies who were allowed to continue profiting off us and get paid by the US government to do so. These days each year they have record breaking profits, while more Americans go homeless because of medical debt.
Lieberman was the sole holdout preventing the inclusion of a public option. I vividly remember how the whip was unwilling to actually whip that vote out. Use Ted Kennedy’s file cabinet, etc.
36 replies
So since the Supreme Court is corrupted, our national legislature should just give up and not even try? This type of attitude leads directly to voter apathy and the election of fascists like Trump.
As for traitors like Sinema, I'm old enough to remember a time when legislative holdouts would be pressured by the national party. The president should call her out by name and run rallies in her district. Cut off her funding, strain her ties with her donors, make her a pariah in the party.
It is so sad how the Democrat party has calcified this "rotating villain" logic into its foundation. It's something that needs to be purged from the party if we want a party that's actually controlled by the voters and not by corporate interests.
They literally did try; I just presented you with evidence that they tried: the Freedom to Vote Act. It had enough cosponsors to pass the House and the Senate; it died due to the filibuster.
So go ahead and tell me what your plan would've been; I'm listening, because you forgot to express one. And if it involves removing the filibuster, 1) that legislation is in the exact same territory as the Voting Rights Act (legally for what the SCOTUS is allowed to do to it; in terms of judicial precedent, it's far worse-off, because holy shit, we're talking about the fucking VRA here), and 2) I dare you to imagine what a 53–47 Senate, a 217–212 House, and Trump could do without the filibuster. I will tell you it's unfathomably worse than what's already happening, and I will also tell you that "well it totally wouldn't have happened with better voting rights!!" is just 1) credulously assuming it wouldn't have already been struck down and 2) not a solid assumption even if not.
Is your plan to delete the filibuster before absolutely flooding the zone with voting rights legislation in hopes they can't strike it all down and fuck voting rights precedent even worse? Good thinking, Mr. Brannigan; SCOTUS-bots have a pre-programmed judicial review limit, after all. (They do not.)
The filibuster is one of their rotating villains. They dont try to change the system because they benefit to much from it.
Without it they would have passed a anti voter bill that would guarantee they never lose this year.
So why don't the Republicans get rid of it then?
The only reason either party has to maintain the filibuster is precedent, to restrain the other party the next time the other party wins. If the filibuster is the only thing standing between the Republicans and a dictatorship where they will never lose power again, then what's stopping them from getting rid of it themselves, right now even?
Because you will always have a risk people voting out the party in power when you have very bad election year like post bush 2008, and then democrats would pass universal Medicare, raise minimum wage, could pass abortion law federally, and everything they don't like. And they know that a lot of it would be popular once it's in place and be harder to get rid of. It works both ways and it rewards centrists.
I don't think you read this part:
That doesn't work, that was a straight cash grab she was never expecting to win reelection just grab as much corporate favor as she could.
No the issue is Republicans/their voters have been consistent in their shitty behavior. It builds up and gets things done for them
Every two years Democrats go to the polls, maybe, and then throw up their hands when everything isn't fixed, demand new politicians and continue to argue amongst themselves as the left has always done because it's not about fixing things, it's about being the more correct liberal/socialist/whatever else you wanna be. And the cycle repeats.
Democrats.don't represent left wing voters. Democrat s ensure left wing voters have no representation
When was the last time any leftist had power in the Dem party?
Uhh? What? Literally irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Republican voters consistently turn out and vote for the same stuff, consistently. This isn't the case for Democrats.
Why does it matter who is in power? Lmfao
It matters because the left wants representation, but the Dems have never allowed them to even have a scrap. Just look at how not a single one came out in support of Mamdani till the literal last second when they figured they could maybe get a few lefty brownie points cause they figured we wouldn't notice. Even a centrist like Sanders had the entire party work against him so the right winger Hillary could take the nomination.
Frankly, Biden should have used the "official acts" ruling to stop SCOTUS from being 6-3, one way or another.
Pack the court. In the past the mere threat of that has brought the justices to heel.
If nothing can be fixed even with that much power, then it seems to me that the system is fundamentally broken and has no capacity to repair itself.
If you internalize that and put your back against the wall, then you may find that the position of commander-in-chief of the most expensive military in the world, with control of an incredibly powerful intelligence apparatus, provides quite a bit more power than a half-dozen senior citizens in robes.
You want my plan? Wait for a good time, like, right after the decision about overturning Roe v Wade was leaked, and have the justices arrested for corruption (it's not as though they aren't horribly corrupt, after all). Then, all you have to do is wait for them to decide to hang themselves at the exact same time that multiple cameras on the cell fail and the guards are off taking a nap together, you know, one of those funny coincidences like what happened with Epstein.
You don't like that approach? You come up with plan. We're the ones who don't believe in the system. If there's no legal answer to your question, then doesn't that just prove that extralegal means are the only way?
Thats cute that you havent noticed democrats always have a rotating villain to foil everyones plans
Speaking of those: did you have one you wanted to discuss? I assumed from the contents of your post that it's just "twy weewy, weewy hawd".
Liberals ask for plans as a thought terminating statement. They dont want plans, they want everyone to shut up and do as they are told
Sooo .. no plan then?
We've been laying out what is to be done for over 100 years, but liberals want an echo chamber that soothes their cognitive dissonance, they want confirmation bias to the things they already support.
Could you provide a good book or website that outlines the plan to migrate a modern capitalist country to whatever it is youre proposing? It would probably help if you also had some information about what you think the ideal alternative is.
The first step is refusing to support capitalist owned parties, which encompasses Democrats and Republicans
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/
"Thought terminating"
You don't even have any thoughts to terminate. You're literally being asked to express them, and you're dodging the question because clearly you have no thoughts to speak of.
Indeed. They're contolled opposition
I would also point out that Obama and the dems back then could have given us Universal Healthcare but instead gave us the ACA and passed it off as a huge victory.
It was indeed a huge victory for insurance companies who were allowed to continue profiting off us and get paid by the US government to do so. These days each year they have record breaking profits, while more Americans go homeless because of medical debt.
Lieberman was the sole holdout preventing the inclusion of a public option. I vividly remember how the whip was unwilling to actually whip that vote out. Use Ted Kennedy’s file cabinet, etc.
GARG WHY DO YOU LOVE TRUMP SO MUCH?!?!
When they first started doing things back in 2021 like making it illegal to give out water at polling stations etc the writing was on the wall.
They should have fought tooth and claw but instead did literally nothing for 4 years and then wondered by gosh how did this happen
Biden never had all that, McConnell bribed two to vote with him, never had the numbers.
They always have a rotating villain to prevent process for the working class. If it's for the donor class it gets passed without debate.
what does it mean? I'm not american