523
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
523 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2145 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And with some damn wiggle room this time.
We had multiple Democrats Peel off and stymied loads of progress (Manchin, Sinema etc).
We need enough room for the wolves in sheep's clothing to not make a (D)ifference in the progress we need to shut down authoritarianism.
The supreme court being public enemy #1 means we need everything else to be operating seamlessly to be able to prevent every single goal for project 2025 line by line immediately and permanently.
Undoing regulatory capture will also be a monumental feat, as will reforming media's ability to platform lies and disinformation that are objectively false.
Huge fucking task list and we haven't even talked about running the actual country yet. We're gonna need one hell of a blue wave to drown the fascists and drain the swamp.
This is a consistent problem with Dem "majority" coalitions dating back to the '77 Carter coalition that cracked up while trying to pass a universal health care plan and fossil fuel exit strategy. Clinton's '93 coalition also splintered due to conservative Democrat infighting. Lieberman famously killed a host of legislation in '09/'10 (although he was mostly a cat's paw for other conservatives in the House and Senate). And then Manchin/Sinema upended Biden's reforms in '17, before squandering the House majority the following year.
These failures aren't accidental. They are the direct result of Democrats saying "We need to vote candidates who are electable" and then getting a bunch of shitty corporate flaks who bought their way through the primaries.
We just watched Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman lose their House seats to AIPAC lobbyists, while Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlahib had to muscle through enormously expensive primaries funded by the same far-right donor groups that favor the Republican Party.
The SCOTUS is a distraction, as they've got no real power to enforce their decisions. The real fight is between a liberal federal government and the assorted red state and municipal governments. We've seen this proven out with AGs like Ken Paxton and governors like DeSantis who routinely break laws in their quest to pump up the base with high profile acts of cruelty to their minority populations. They've discovered its easier to ask forgiveness than permission, and the Biden admin's response has been to just kinda shrug its way through rather than risk open confrontation.
This is the same shit guys like Pierce and Buchanan did shortly before the federal system collapsed under their feet. But if you're always trying to triangulate and get the opposition on board, its where your party and your country eventually end up when fascists at the lower levels of government realize they've got carte blanche and a partisan mandate to do evil.
This is something I've been thinking about more and more.
With our three branches of government, it's up to the executive to enforce the laws, and by extension, the rulings of the judiciary.
What's the failsafe mechanism for when the executive doesn't like a ruling and has no respect of law, or for the system?
What happens after the supreme court says, "Hey President! What you're doing is unconstitutional and you must stop immediately."...and the president just goes, "Actually I don't care what you say. I'm still doing it. Have a wonderful day and go fuck all nine of yourselves."
This almost happened with Andrew Jackson. He is quoted as saying “now let’s see them enforce it” (or something like that, I don’t feel like looking it up) and he pretty much told the SCOTUS at the time they have no power. Congress has the purse, President has the sword, judiciary has nothing.
His cabinet ended up convincing him that the establishment of the USA depends on him following the orders of the court, and he ended up backing down.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
I have bad news about the Senate.
Reps are probably taking it unless Texas, Florida, or Montana comes through to glad Dems a 50/50 split.
Now if they can abolish the filibuster at least for adding states and also take the house, they could add DC and Puerto Rico and the next cycle would be friendlier.
Last poll I saw had Tester up 6 points here in Montana.
Even if that's based on a small sample poll you need to be giving people hope that their vote matters. Save the doomerism, pessimism, realism, or whatever else you call what you're doing until after the election.
Senate will be tight in any realistic scenario. Tester in Montana is the most likely of the three I listed to come through and I donated to his campaign.
I will be voting against Ted Cruz and I am volunteering on weekends to help Collin Allred.
If anyone reading this is wondering if it's worth it, I think it absolutely is worth it to donate what you can, and volunteer how you can.
Voting is the bare minimum. Please do so.
How does volunteering help?
These campaigns are raising millions of dollars from all sorts of rich people. Why should you give them your labor for free?
Because paid operatives are expensive and knocking on doors is the most effective way to mobilize voters.
lol
Not likely, but it helps the other side far more than it helps us. It should be removed.
Should be doesn't mean they'll be able to. You need 60 votes to do so. We'll be lucky to hold the Senate, let alone pick up 11+ seats.
No, that's the ironic thing. The Filibuster is a Senate rule, and it only takes ~~50 Senators~~ a simple majority to adopt a new rule.
Yup, you heard that right. The Filibuster can be erased with a majority vote to set a new rule. The party in power doesn't do that, though, because they are afraid of what the other side would do if they get the majority.