President Donald Trump declined to endorse Vice President JD Vance for the 2028 presidential election during a press briefing in Ireland

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 day ago* (11 children)

following the midterms

One problem. The midterms haven't even finished. This is preceding the midterms.

It’s ‘fucking normal’ to start marginalizing the current administration

That's fine. But we don't need to start talking about elections! It leads to thinks like good ol' Mitch saying we can't let Congress vote on a SCOTUS position because we're a year away from an election.

Your patronizing tone is not welcome. I don't fucking care what the status quo is, I'm sick and fucking tired of the status quo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 day ago (10 children)

    It’s also normal for them to put christmas decorations out in some stores before thanksgiving and you’ll still get people whining that it’s too soon or whatever. This is all just a weird complaint, because it happens every election cycle, and, we’d ideally like to move on. The zombie corpse of Mitch McConnell can read a calendar and the political reality as much as anyone. They’ll use whatever tricks they have to fuck over as many people as they can as long as they can. But we need to start talking about whatever the post-Trump era will look like, nobody wants to stay mired in this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (8 children)

    In case you forgot, that wasn't a hypothetical. It actually occurred during Obama's admin. Enough people thought "yea that sounds right" to the point that there wasn't even a procedural change in SCOTUS selection.

    Christmas decorations being up early is one thing. Talking about electoral politics is an entirely different thing, that actually has consequences. People tune out of politics all together because we talk about elections years before they actually happen.

    Both parties absolutely love that we spend all our time with politics discussing elections, because all they do day in and day out is fundraise for their parties. Assuming that they never eat or sleep, politicians in both parties have less than 30 seconds to review bills before they vote on them, because of all the fundraising they do. The constant electoralism means that they never have to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    In case you forgot, that wasn't a hypothetical. It actually occurred during Obama's admin. Enough people thought "yea that sounds right" to the point that there wasn't even a procedural change in SCOTUS selection

    And then one of those ghouls, Barrett? was sworn in like 2 weeks before an election when it suited their needs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    Yes, I know. Mitch did that one too, and has to do with Mitch weaponizing the fact that people tune out of politics because of constant electoralism. It's not just Mitch, it's not just Republicans, it's the underlying system. Part of that underlying system is constant electoralism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)

    your thesis is that people weren’t tuned into the election 2 weeks before the election?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    My thesis is that electoralism is so constant that enough people agreed with him in 2016 to the point where no changes were made to SCOTUS selection, setting himself up to just do what he wanted. The Democratic party was pissed at both situations, but they saw fundraising opportunities instead of actually fucking doing something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I read that situation as the republicans had the democrats in complete checkmate and just did what they wanted to do. They made up arguments on the fly to suit their needs, and I think they will continue to do that in the future. The US is a system in which there will be constant elections, so try not to get too twisted about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

    I will rage against the dying of the light. I will not go gentle into that good night.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Ok but if the democrats had shoved Ginsburg out of her seat and rammed through a supreme court justice at whatever price (even via -gasp- hypocrisy), then the world would be a lot different now. So I kinda wish the rage went into electing effective motherfuckers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    My rage towards our socioeconomic capitalist system is being used to organize against the system, and I do vote for people I think will be effective.

    I 100% agree that Ginsberg should have been pushed out, and I think Obama could have said that Congress elected not to perform their constitutional duty of providing advice and consent therefore he will be appointing the seat without them, rather than tweeting about it.

    Edit: just noticed that the goalposts have moved from being about putting limits on election talk to implying that I don't vote.

  • source
  • parent