The system is rigged and everyone knows it.
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
65 points (91.1% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2598 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
just ask Al Gore he knows all about it
It's been years since he was impeached, the second time I mean. Government is slow AF.
When it wants to be.
Look at how quick we sold weapons to Netanyahu.
Tbf, in that case we had the documents written and signed and sealed and delivered and notarized and what-not for decades in advance. Literally. A lot of preparatory work went into making that happen.
The judicial branch, on the other hand, has been predated upon by so many groups acting to try to disable it so they can get their way - e.g. the last real anti-trust lawsuit was in the 90s, with Internet Explorer bundled into like Win95 iirc - that it can barely hobble along to do anything. People ask for it to do so very extremely much, like consider the detailed cases of every single immigrant that comes into this country asking for asylum, but then it is not given the resources that it would need to properly do a tenth of what is asked.
Though you are right, b/c it still did manage to overturn Roe v. Wade pretty quick. When it wants to, all the barriers somehow magically just disappear...
Overturning Roe took decades of targeted appointments to the federal judiciary and legal teams across multiple states refining their statutes and challenges.
Good point - it seemed to happen quickly once the ball got rolling, but it was actually a MASSIVE undertaking that led up to that, right.
Democrats don't want to get rid of him. They supported him in the first place. They need him to scare the voters into voting democrat.
I think it is more complex than that - as in yes but also no at the same time.
The media used him to gain moar profitz, fo sho. Forget "equal time", they git it to whoever says the most inflammatory stuff imaginable 😡.
Dems probably wanted him to win out over Ted Cruz, who may arguably have been worse, as in less amenable to being controlled. If you get a chance, watch that video of him where his family makes material for an upcoming election campaign, and the camerman only pretends to turn off the camera - you can get the real, unfiltered look at how they treat him and vice versa. He is legit scary.
And don't forget the hand that Repubs had in all of this as well: it was supposed to be Bush (JEB) vs. Clinton, but he fumbled, but then they could not punt it down the road to try to win Congress rather than the Presidency b/c they had previously spent 8 years denying all judicial nominations during Obama's Presidency. They HAD to get the Presidency, so ultimately they still backed Trump despite knowing what that would mean.
And it cost the Repubs dearly: most of their entire old-guard is gone now, having been replaced not with the newer Tea Party faction but now even the Alt Right. Very few have remained after Trump's multiple purges. Those that are there are extremely volatile - see e.g. Matt Gaetz ousting the former Speaker of the House a few months ago, and Marjorie Taylor Green the Jewish space-laser woman who had literally advocated openly for actual civil war, plus also threatened to oust the next/current Speaker. Trump opened the door to these... and others just like them.
Dems in turn had extremely little chance to have won that 2016 election: when else in modern history has a 2-consecutive-term, 8-year Democrat Presidency ever been followed by another Democrat one, rather than switching over to a Republican in the White House? (Obama x2 > Bush x2 > Clinton x2 > Bush Sr. x2 and also Reagan x2 > Carter x2 > Nixon & Ford - but not since Kennedy & Johnson has that happened for Democrats). On the other hand, if they had not tried to take the White House, then Roe v. Wade was at risk - which as we saw, happened, and now women are dying, some areas are turning into "medical care deserts" where people would have to drive HUNDREDS of miles to get even normal birthing care - and women are being tracked in order to prevent their access to "specialized" care, including abortion but so many other things as well too that are not just abortions.
So whether they wanted him to be crazy and edge out JEB and Ted Cruz back then or not, yeah I get it, but that was back then - that does not mean that they want him now!? Maybe, but that's a matter of opinion rather than fact, and I kinda doubt it, b/c there's a highly realistic chance that despite him having been impeached twice that he may yet not only run but win again!?
so Democrats decided to back Cox. The Democratic Governors Association spent more than a million dollars on an ad titled "Meet Dan," which portrayed Cox as a close ally of Trump with hardline conservative views on abortion and gun rights.
Claiming attack ads are supporting is a fucking stretch.
Claiming attack ads are supporting is a fucking stretch
Missing the point spectacularly, here. To the republican base, those are all strengths. The DGA basically tried to discourage a cult from showing up to vote for Dan Cox by portraying him as a close ally of Dear Leader who is hated by Democrats.
The Dem leadership delusions about it being 1992 and most of the population occupying the tiny sliver of political real estate between the most conservative Democrats and the least conservative Republicans is costing them more elections than anything else at a time where winning should be easier than it has been for decades.
The DGA basically tried to discourage a cult
Why would Democrats try to reach the MAGATs at all? If they are running anti-Trump attack ads they are targeting the "moderate" Republicans who don't pay enough attention to know how bad their primary options are. They know they can't affect Trump supporters. But there's a bunch of disaffected people who identify as Republicans but dislike Trump.
and most of the population occupying the tiny sliver of political real estate between the most conservative Democrats and the least conservative Republicans
It's not as big as the 90s, but it's still substantial. Trump galvanized a lot of people into moving further towards the edges but the majority of Americans are politically apathetic. You only have to look at voter turnout to see that.
Why would Democrats try to reach the MAGATs at all?
The alternative involves treating progressives like members of their constituency.
Why would Democrats try to reach the MAGATs at all?
Because they mistakenly believe that doing so will make a candidate that isn't palatable to the overall electorate win the primaries and provide an easy general election for their own candidate.
Didn't you read the article? It's all in there..
It's not as big as the 90s, but it's still substantial
Nowhere near as substantial as the Dem leadership thinks. If it had been, their 1992 strategy of going for the mythical "independents" would give them landslide wins in the vast majority of races in stead of barely eking out tiny specidic wins for tiny majorities, even losing the House to the most incompetent fascist party in history.
These assholes will both sides anything and everything.
Now Democrats are responsible for Republicans choosing shitty candidates. Somehow.
Complacency and declination. Both sides are not equal, but both side are in decline
There is actual proof for that. You can read wikileaks published emails, that are cryptographicly signed by gmail using DKIM.
But we won't.
We should make him not here first.
Agreed. Please show us how.
Vote
Yup, that seems to be working.
He will always be here because democrats will support him so he can be a scarecrow for people to vote for them.