3.5 years too late. Why the fuck wasn't this the first thing you did in office.
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
426 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2193 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
The old guard thinks (not incorrectly, I should add) that you can get way more average-and-dumber people to remember that they like you, and thus vote for you, if you do something splashy RIGHT before the election. It’s infuriatingly cynical, and it’s all for optics.
I'll give you one guess
Battle box?
Nema toads?
All good ideas... that can't go anywhere as long as Republicans control the House and demand 60 votes to do anything in the Senate.
At this point I believe they will ignore/disavow any voting result that does not benefit them, even if it was an overwhelming result.
And that is how you stay the nominee.
This is what drives me crazy about Biden; 2 years ago, the Supreme Court overturns Roe, Biden says, "this must not be the final word," but does nothing to reign in the court. 1 year ago, the Supreme Court ends affirmative action, Biden says, "this is not a normal court," but rejects calls expand the court. Now, the Supreme Court has effectively given the President immunity from all crimes, he finally comes up with a set of decent court reforms, 4 months before the election, when his political position is at the weakest it's been for his entire presidency. He's such a blind institutionalist that he allowed an American institution to wage war on America's government and its people for almost his entire term before he got serious about doing anything about it.
He’s not serious now.
He better hop to it, hes only got 7 more months.
He can't do any of it without a filibuater-proof Senate majority (which could mean 51 Senators who are willing to amend the filibuster at the start of the 2025 session).
They've had dozens of chances for that over dozens of years and won't because they need that rotating villain in the event they can't find someone from their own party to be the rotating villain.
They've had dozens of chances for that over dozens of years
From 1980-present the Democratic party has had a filibuater-proof majority in the Senate once, in Obama's first 2 years, and they passed the ACA with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
The Senate only needs 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster. With Independents they have that right now
Except ~~Cinema~~ Sinema and Manchin have both stated that changing the filibuster is a hard no for both of them. So no, we do not have 51 Senators caucusing Democratic and willing to touch the filibuster.
And where were the calls to primary anyone that would vote against it?
You're coming across like you just like to rage without actually paying attention.
Voters had been calling for a primary challenge to both for basically the entirety of Biden's term (since some of the earliest legislative efforts with reconciliation bills including a minimum wage increase, I believe), up until they both registered as Independent and neither are running for re-election, so the primary became moot. However, the W. Virginia seat (Manchin's) is likely to go R this year, so that doesn't help us for things like judicial appointments where Manchin was reliable. Arizona (Sinema's seat) we have a chance.
Calls to primary are irrelevant when those same people would head to the polls and reelect them. There is no accountability, they can get away with murder and voters (VBNMW types) will still cast a vote for that murderer as long as there is a D by their name.
Now you're just sounding like you're posting in bad faith. You asked "where were the calls to primary" and in your very next comment you're saying "calls to primary are irrelevant" as though it was my point and you're refuting it. There's not enough accountability because voter turnout in the primaries is absolute garbage. Protest voting in the general is useless. We need overwhelming turnout in the primaries for the state legislatures to get better candidates in the general. Election reform to enable viable 3rd party candidates will only come on a state-by-state level. And that will never happen without good turnout in the primaries.
It's not a bad faith argument, the few saying primary candidates before the election are the same ones that will vote for them anyway. Politicians have no incentive to bend to the will of their constituents if they continue to be rewarded for bad behavior.
Protest voting in the general is useless
This is voter suppression, it's telling people 'vote my way or else it's a wasted vote.' And it's always 'do it my way this time, we can think about reform later', later never comes.
You asked where are the calls to primary, I told you that the calls to primary were made, and you then said calls to primary are irrelevant. You did not have faith in your own point.
I'm not in a position of authority to suppress anybody's vote, and I'm not telling anyone to not vote. I am, in fact, advocating for more people to vote, and to do so more often and more consistently. That's kind of the opposite of voter suppression. Protest voting is how we got Trump when Clinton was the nominee. The next President will be either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. There will be other choices, but they won't win, voting for them just lowers the number of votes that the major party candidate on the opposite end of the spectrum need to beat to win. If I was opposed to election reform, I wouldn't be out here encouraging people to vote in the primaries. I would be keeping silent while they continue to ignore how long their tactic has failed at achieving the goal. But I support election reform, so I vote in the primaries and encourage other people to do the same.
Meaning the calls to primary were not serious. Time and again voters complain then reelect the people they are complaining about. That's why the DNC are not even campaigning, they know they can do jack shit and voters will still vote for them. Many feel trapped by the system while they keep supporting it because they have been convinced there are no other choices and anything but a vote for their oppressors is a wasted vote.
Meaning the calls to primary were not serious.
How are you reaching that conclusion (especially when just 4 hours ago you seemed unaware that people were calling for it)? I think they were serious. But they were rendered moot because both Sinema and Manchin announced they weren't seeking re-election before the 2024 primary season started.
Time and again voters complain then reelect the people they are complaining about. That’s why the DNC are not even campaigning, they know they can do jack shit and voters will still vote for them.
Incumbents win re-election so easily because voter turnout in primaries sucks so they don't have to spend hardly any money or energy to be nominated again. Here in Texas, we had 3.2 M voters in the 2024 primaries, out of 17.9 M registered voters. And 2.3 M of those were Republican primary voters. So only ~1 M Democratic primary voters, selecting who will be on the ballot in November. Now you can try to blame that on Biden being too old and unpopular to motivate people out to vote, but that's just passing the buck on voters removing their voices from the literally every other office that's up for election. Biden being the presumptive nominee for president in no way takes away your voice for all those other offices that have 100x more impact on your daily life. And at the start of it all, you have to have better candidates actually willing to run in the primary in order to vote for them in the primary.
Many feel trapped by the system while they keep supporting it because they have been convinced there are no other choices
But they're not participating in the process of selecting the candidates that will be on the general election ballot. One million Democratic primary ballots cast in a state where the previous mid-term general election had ~3.5 M Democratic votes for the statewide offices and the previous presidential election had 5.2 M Democratic votes. And to be clear, there were 8 candidates for president on the 2024 Democratic primary ballot in Texas.
and anything but a vote for their oppressors is a wasted vote.
If you are aligned left, and you vote in the general for a 3rd party, you are reducing the number of votes the Republican candidate needs to receive to win. That is a mathematical fact in every precinct in this country where a simple plurality of cast votes determines the winner. Pointing it out is not a suppression/oppression tactic, it's a plea to learn how the system is designed to function because we won't overcome its intentional problems by sitting on the sidelines.
Biden no more aligns with my values than a Republicans does yours. Democrats have contributed to the problems we have, giving them power to pull the football back again is not the solution.
He should have been pushing this shit 2 years ago when roe was overturned. The absolute fucking stupidity of Biden and the Democratic party is astounding. They'd rather dangle carrots in your face than give you the carrot and say "there's more to come if you keep us in power".
I'm sure he'll get this done before November, then it's on to world peace!
This is about as credible as horny milfs near me.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
President Joe Biden is seriously considering publicly endorsing major reforms at the Supreme Court, a move that would make him the first sitting president in generations to back seismic changes to the way the nation’s highest court operates, according to two sources familiar with the deliberations.
Chief among the changes Biden is planning to publicly back are term limits for the nine justices, who currently serve lifetime appointments.
Additionally, Biden is considering whether he should push for a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the historic ruling from the court earlier this month that gave presidents immunity for some actions they take while in office.
But as the Supreme Court came under intense scrutiny in 2023 following a series of blockbuster investigative pieces that turned a spotlight on the ethical alleged lapses of several of the justices, Democrats in Congress pushed for meaningful reforms at the court, though the issue never fully gained steam.
The nine justices eventually released an ethics code in November that did little to assuage concerns from the court’s critics.
The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.
The original article contains 343 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 41%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
And remove the electoral college. Replace it with continuous vote by phone.
Hmmm this guy left to Cancun during the hurricane??...might as well stay there buddy! -unvote!
Ohh, it's not possible, it will be hacked!... Screw you! That's a big bs sandwich 🥪 nobody believes anymore. Bring vote by phone 🤳 and let us tell you what we think.
I kinda like the idea of these shitheads requiring ongoing approval to continue governing if that's what you mean by continuous. Amazing.
Yes exactly....they guy show's up to an interview and mentions how he grabs women and then the next he's not president again.