They should not only be impeached, but charged with 340 million counts of violating the civil rights of the American people (multiplied by dozens of rulings). Life in prison for those criminals.
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:
Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.
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).
Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.
Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I'm not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.
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.
Let them play that game (and hopefully get caught). Better than the in-the-open shit they do now. At least try
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.
You go get 'em, AOC. Personally, I'd like to see the Declaration of Independence rewritten so that it doesn't give this false impression about our form of government and kings.
There's no such thing as wasted political capital these days, shit like this energizes the base, and this is probably the biggest thing to help Biden (or whoever the candidate is) all year.
trumpers are already jacked up on Mountain Dew, they can't vote any harder then they already are and they're not gonna vote any less. We need the focus on motivating Dem voters.
And win or lose, this does that.
Show voters that with X amount more votes. We can actually fix something. It's a few months before the election, this is literally perfect timing.
Which will highlight to the country that a Republican House matters right before an election is coming up and donations will make a huge difference in races...
What dem voters want is to know that their votes matter. And this shows them what happens because of the 2022 midterms and will lead to increased turnout in 2024.
It's not "all or nothing". To beat fascism we need to never stop fighting even when the odds are astronomically against suceeding.
It's not even politics at this point, it's basic psychology. We need to give voters what they want, and right now Dem voters want to fight fascism.
"Sorry, Mrs. Thomas, but your trip on the billionaire's super yacht has been cancelled and you and your husband are coming with us--by official act and order of King Joe."
Okay, let's suppose this plan succeeds... Then what? Are we going to replace the court? Who said the new judges are going to be more or less the same regardless of political affiliation? And what exactly is there to stop the opposition from doing the same thing?
There seems to be more systematic issues involved.
And what exactly is there to stop the opposition from doing the same thing?
Process. The same that that puts barriers on this discussion from AOC. The entire impeachment process is the understanding of the people who created this country, to have a political process that is departed from the legal process. That's why being impeached doesn't also mean criminally convicted and vice versa. Historically, if you were a vassal of the lord and had your fief removed, you couldn't hold court with your lord AND you basically were penniless with the potential to end up in jail. The entire impeachment process is to separate those two things. That's why the process is spelled out fully in the Constitution and the execution solely left to Congress to implement.
There entire point of an impeachment is to execute some political justice without having legal justice married to it. What stops anyone from just abusing the process is the process itself and what it indicates for functioning government. If the goal is have no functioning government, then there isn't anything that stops anyone from abuse. But no functioning government means that those in Congress would lose power, and a loss of power means they become less enticing for lobbyist to enact agendas, for people to seek recourse, and for States to enhance power within the vacuum.
So an abuse of that power would end with them loosing more and more power. This is the same reason why Congress has had a hard time really pinning impeachment and contempt charges and have talked about inherent contempt for Garland (which inherent contempt is basically using Congress to enforce a contempt charge via the Sergeant-at-arms doing the arresting and Congress inventing a "trail" system all of their own outside of the Judicial system... which by the way SCOTUS way back in the 1930s, the last time this was used, indicated that THAT specific instance was not a violation of habeas corpus, but trying to ring Garland up on inherent contempt and trying to put him in Congress jail, would be such a complex process and likely wouldn't survive a habeas corpus challenge, but who knows at this point? For all we know SCOTUS may be completely cool with Congress tossing people into Congress jail without a proper trail. But of course that brings with it ALL KINDS of ramifications about our Federal government jailing people in a a jail completely ran by Congress and outside the entire legal system, but I digress).
Long story short, all of this stuff is political process. And you do all of this to further a political agenda to the public. But if the public isn't backing that action, it has the ability to backfire in that entire you don't get to come back to Congress or you weaken the overall power of the Federal government. So you have to look at the long term goal of anything you want to do with this process. Like the inherent contempt vote got delayed after the first Presidential debate. Biden's performance was so bad that Republicans feel that they got what they wanted. The whole Garland audio tapes, the GOP wanted them so that they could play back the tapes to the public and show that Biden was losing his marbles. But now since the debate, there's little reasons for the GOP to go down the tossing Garland into Congress jail and going down a path that's likely to not play well for anyone except their most harden supporters.
The process limits the process. That's what prevent the whole "same thing".
Are we going to replace the court?
I mean, yeah, that's the goal. SCOTUS has had about a dozen cases that they've overturned decades long, and in some cases century long, established rule. One or two per lifetime of a justice is a lot to completely overturn. This court has overturned nearly a dozen long established rulings. The entire point of a justice system is to bring about stability to the political process. Congress answers to the public, and the public can change their mind often, so random laws flying over the place isn't unusual. SCOTUS is not elected and thus they faintly answer to the public. So they need to have some stability to maintain legitimacy. Even Robert's talked about this in the ruling that overturned Roe and felt the majority was going too far.
So I think if the court itself is saying that it is ruining their own legitimacy, bringing them up into the political process to answer to these statements the court itself is making is fair game. And I don't think that's unfair to mention in that whole process. Judges don't answer to the public, so justices that massively change the landscape in short orders of time, are shaking the stability they're supposed to be building. If SCOTUS wants to rewrite the law of the land, it needs to be gradual not as fast as possible.
This is a pretty thoughtful response, I appreciate you taking the time write it. I agree in spirit with what AOC wants to accomplish. Some of those judges (Clarence Thomas) shouldn't be anywhere near the Supreme Court. My fear is that this plan only works if the impeachments proceeding are successful, they manage to successfully replace the current justices with new ones, AND enact meaningful change in a short period of time to make that a situation like this doesn't happen again. If they fail at any of these things, then the Republicans, who don't respect precedent, process, or the rule of law, would just weaponize the impeachments to remove the justices and replace them with their own whenever they get a majority in government.
replace the corrupt court and amend the constitution so this doesnt happen again. thats what it was made for, to be malleable to change as progress sees fit
the constitution isnt some holy book of rules never to be touched, yet it is treated as such. its too bad the county may be uninhabitable for people like me before we can get our shit together
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.
Who says he can't? The Supreme Court just said that he's immune from "official acts" without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn't an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There's nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an "official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States", then just having the details classified.
Having something criminal declared as an "official act" is piss-easy, especially when you're in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.
The laws about that were just thrown out the window with this ruling. Everything is an official act as long as he was president when he stated it to he done. Ordering fries from McDonald's is now an official act as well.
Don’t bother with this “user”. Look at their comment history. The person showed up today to defend this obvious act against democracy. My guess is a Russian/Chinese misinformation promoter.
You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it's an official act, there's absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.
The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.
There's some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can't handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.
However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn't matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.
And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today's ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.
Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.
The supreme court Supreme Court Justices disagree with you, but OK I'll bite.
Why can't a president kill an american citizen on american soil? Because it's illegal? Do you understand that that that no longer applies to the president?
The president can't commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.
What the fuck do you mean "lol". That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.
A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.
This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That's the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.
So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?
While i agree with you, it's a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.
In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.
“Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.
“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”
I don't understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.
The problem here is that Trump stole and likely sold classified documents. This ruling now allows him to sell secrets that can cause grave danger to the country without consequence.
When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They'll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don't stand up to fascists.
All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.
Yeah. There was also the title, literally "dictator", that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.
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.
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.
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.
Most of those where cops only larping as military. Military operations are a completely different thing. No country wants to fight their own people. Your own logistics, intelligence, supply chains, and financing all rely, in part, on the very people you are fighting... You can't trust or count on the chain of command at any point, at any point your keys to power can turn on you and you're dead. Leaders with half a brain know you usually don't have a long life attacking your own people.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.
Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren't supported by the Constitution!
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.
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.
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..,..
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
