Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett 2 the Supreme Court by a vote of 52 - 48

[caulixtla 2,170]

25 minutes ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

But it isn't encouraging to even dialogue when the centralists give leftists hell.

Until we have nationwide ranked choice voting and proportional representation in the US, and I don’t think I will live to see that (and I still have a lot of life left in me), the only option is to explain to the hard-left who wants to vote third party that doing so will only make the right stronger. I saw Gore lose because of Nader, and I saw Hillary lose because the Bernie supporters in key swing states would not pull the lever for her.

To win, we need to reflect the attitudes of a (by the standards of all other developed nations) very conservative electorate. This is why Hillary didn’t have, as just one example, police reform as part of her platform in 2016, [1] because US voters would not had supported it back then. [2] [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign#Platform which was a lot more left leaning than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Political_positions

[2] https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/policing-america

[3] There is other evidence that Clinton would had lost votes by shifting further left. A 2018 survey shows that 20% of voters were far left (i.e. center-left in the rest of the developed world) while 50% of voters were centrists or somewhat liberal. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ Even among Democrats, Clinton had far more support in the key swing state Pennsylvania than Sanders did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Pennsylvania_Democratic_presidential_primary Ditto with Wisconsin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Pennsylvania_Democratic_presidential_primary

[HorusRa2 5,005]

20 minutes ago, caulixtla said:

Until we have nationwide ranked choice voting and proportional representation in the US, and I don’t think I will live to see that (and I still have a lot of life left in me), the only option is to explain to the hard-left who wants to vote third party that doing so will only make the right stronger. I saw Gore lose because of Nader, and I saw Hillary lose because the Bernie supporters in key swing states would not pull the lever for her.

To win, we need to reflect the attitudes of a (by the standards of all other developed nations) very conservative electorate. This is why Hillary didn’t have, as just one example, police reform as part of her platform in 2016, [1] because US voters would not had supported it back then. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_2016_presidential_campaign#Platform which was a lot more left leaning than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Political_positions

[2] https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/policing-america

 

The counter argument is that left candidates should focus on and campaign specifically on the issues where there is a broad american consensus despite the fact that politicians do not vote in according with public opinion. 

Things like: Minimum wage, Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, Background Checks w/ Guns, Infrastructure Bills, Jobs Programs re: Clean Energy, End Foreign Wars and bring troops home. 

All of these issues have majorities support among democrats and independents and up to majority support with republicans. 

The reason we do not have rank choice voting is because both democrats and republicans are better off without a third party option. Both parties use fear to exploit voters and make them choose only between them in order to keep the gridlock that currently exists in place. For as long as people like you tell independent minded people that they are terrible people because they dare vote something other than blue and for as long as those people listen to you, you will never live to see the day of any of the things I mentioned above passing.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

I wasn't aware that in order to go on GGD that you had to be a shill for Biden. Was that something I missed in the terms of use when I made an account? 

Also, the policies that the US govt implements has a profound worldwide impact and so you're just not correct that this won't affect people from other countries. 

 

 

You don’t have to be for anyone to be a member here.  Continuously using “we” and “us” to refer to yourself as a US citizen when you aren’t a citizen and live in a different country was the point.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

12 hours ago, gabeoz said:

But democrats cant do anything about Amy, meanwhile they can fight within their own party  theyre in the senate minority and republicans are determined to make sure they get a supermajority in the supreme court, no matter what the democrats could have tried it wouldn't have worked.

 

Here's the thing- thats completely impossible. The court (regardless of how we view it) is a cornerstone of the US and the core principles of the country, ignoring would be so extremely dangerous and would set a precedent that would very much backfire. Of course there are cases where expanding the court was a threat to get through a certain measure, but ignoring it would have such immeasurable consequences, it's not worth it.

 

The best thing democrats can do (only if they get the supermajority), is to expand the court or to impeach and there has only been 1 supreme court justice to ever have been impeached in US history (it's been over 200 years), But the only way to impeach is to accuse and convict them of a crime. It's an extremely delicate matter.

Nah. The only reason the SC has the power it does is because we allow it to, and because our politicians have made it this way because they would rather the courts legislate and do their duties rather than the legislative branch itself. The past 20 maybe even 30 years this process has occurred as our legislative branch has decided to not act and push it to the courts instead, allowing them to decide things so they don't ultimately have to.

And the Republican Party especially has been adept at this to the point the SC is the supreme now. This is what's dangerous. But it doesn't have to be this way.

The legislative branch could start actually legislating and doing its duties, using the power the Constitution provides it. Meanwhile, the SC doesn't have to be the supreme end-all.

And, in fact, if a right-wing SC has its way and completely goes bonkers, you really think it's appropriate to follow that and allow them to steamroll the American people?

No thank you. They can take 9 seats and the rest of us will do what is RIGHT and ignore those extremist, radical, activist rulings from a far right Court.

[caulixtla 2,170]

23 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Things like: Minimum wage, Medicare for All, Universal Basic Income, Background Checks w/ Guns, Infrastructure Bills, Jobs Programs re: Clean Energy, End Foreign Wars and bring troops home. 

All of these issues have majorities support among democrats and independents and up to majority support with republicans.

Biden, for the record supports universal background checks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Gun_policy

He also supports clean energy and that jobs that would create: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Energy_and_environment

Point being, he supports some, but not all, of what the far left wants. And, with 40% of US voters part of the cult of Trump, that is the best we are going to get. Right now, we support the Republican party when we insist on a hard shift left. It will be that way until the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs, or if we get more places like Maine where ranked choice voting is a thing.

And, yes, incrementalism does make positive changes. The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, but it’s a lot better than the old days of “If you have a pre-existing condition, you better hold on to a job with a good health plan” we had before.

The best we can hope for right now is to have a trifecta (Senate, House, and White House) and to undo the damage Trump has done in the last four years.

[thefamebitch 834]

Sorry but we need to PACK THE COURTS  this is insanity 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

52 minutes ago, caulixtla said:

Biden, for the record supports universal background checks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Gun_policy

He also supports clean energy and that jobs that would create: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Energy_and_environment

Point being, he supports some, but not all, of what the far left wants. And, with 40% of US voters part of the cult of Trump, that is the best we are going to get. Right now, we support the Republican party when we insist on a hard shift left. It will be that way until the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs, or if we get more places like Maine where ranked choice voting is a thing.

And, yes, incrementalism does make positive changes. The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect, but it’s a lot better than the old days of “If you have a pre-existing condition, you better hold on to a job with a good health plan” we had before.

The best we can hope for right now is to have a trifecta (Senate, House, and White House) and to undo the damage Trump has done in the last four years.

Okay, so, I just want to make a few additional points. 

1. "We" are not far left. It's actually center-left in the political spectrum; it's just that because the US is a right wing country, it is assumed that anything to the left of Joe Biden is "far left." 

2. The problem with what Joe does or does not support is the fact that he's a right winger representing the "left" party. Sure, there are some positions like guns, marriage equality, etc that he is in step with his party and is to the left. However, there are many others where he represents the right wing. In fact, with regard to foreign policy (the most important function of the presidency), Joe Biden is to the right of Donald Trump in both rhetoric and voting record. 

3. The problem with your idea is that while the Democrats attempt to cater to the moderate republicans they pivot to the right to the point they are right of center in order to try and win elections. As republicans continue to go further right, the democrats continue to follow them. I am only saying that if the democrats do not stand up and fight back and tug to the left, the democrats will be republicans officially in a few more cycles in all things except for social issues (marriage equality, abortion, etc). That is not the world that you want to live in and I don't think most people on GGD do either. 

4. You can argue that the ACA was not an improvement. It gave access to like 20 million people but did nothing to contain the cost of healthcare and insurance. In fact, everybody's premiums has increased every year since it became law. So having health insurance doesn't really mean anything when your premiums, deductibles and copayments continue to increase and the availability of your doctor changes from insurance plan to insurance plan. 

Incrementalism is always a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Incrementalism will be helpful once it is passed into law and will have diminishing returns as time goes by. The best we can actually hope for is a strong 3rd party movement or for people to actually demand that politicians represent people instead of wealthy donors that fund their campaigns. 

[caulixtla 2,170]

3 hours ago, HorusRa2 said:

best we can actually hope for is a strong 3rd party movement or for people to actually demand that politicians represent people instead of wealthy donors that fund their campaigns. 

A strong third party movement will not improve things. It will just split the left wing and give more victories to the Republicans. That’s how things work with the outdated first-past-the-post voting system that the US has.

There is a reason the Republicans support Green party candidates, especially in key swing states: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/green-party-republicans-hawkins.html

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

Just now, caulixtla said:

A strong third party movement will not improve things. It will just split the left wing and give more victories to the Republicans. That’s how things work with the outdated first-past-the-post voting system that the US has.

There is a reason the Republicans support Green party candidates, especially in key swing states: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/us/politics/green-party-republicans-hawkins.html

 

No. There are like 100 million people who dont vote because republicans and democrats have disappointed them so much that they no longer vote. 

You are just simply vote and are pushing for people to vote between republican and republican-lite.

[Chromatican 4,046]

@HorusRa2 and @caulixtla 

The problem with the argument that Democrats should appeal to center right people is that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly in favor of Donald Trump. The “far left” and independent votes are a lot easier to court if Democrats support populist policies and actually advocate for the people like they are supposed to. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 hours ago, Chromatican said:

@HorusRa2 and @caulixtla 

The problem with the argument that Democrats should appeal to center right people is that the Republican Party is overwhelmingly in favor of Donald Trump. The “far left” and independent votes are a lot easier to court if Democrats support populist policies and actually advocate for the people like they are supposed to. 

I agree with this. Its when the Dems do not support and or do not convince independents that they are supportive of said populist policies that they lose. I.e. 2016 is a prime example of this. 

[Chromatican 4,046]

3 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I agree with this. Its when the Dems do not support and or do not convince independents that they are supportive of said populist policies that they lose. I.e. 2016 is a prime example of this. 

The blaming of third party voters is so annoying. It is the candidates job to appeal to Independents and people who usually don't vote. People have a right to vote their conscience, and might live in a state that is guaranteed to go to one candidate or the other.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,565]

Anyways when the 2015 jumps out, and Biden tanks in properly fixing America’s problems bc his admin & sycophants deluded themselves into thinking they’re better than scholars and bring upon a right winger that’s actually evil + smart in 2024/8. 

We ain’t perfect either but start preparing your Canadian citizenship applications now 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,565]

All the words yall bring up when politicians are known for lying during their primaries 

[caulixtla 2,170]

4 hours ago, Chromatican said:

The “far left” and independent votes are a lot easier to court if Democrats support populist policies and actually advocate for the people like they are supposed to. 

There are plain simply not enough of those far left (center-left anywhere else in the first world) voters in the US to win elections. We know this for a fact because Sanders, this spring, was unable to get even 10 million votes. If there were a legion of left-wing voters who both supported those populist positions and actually voted, they would had voted for Sanders and he would had won the Democratic party primary. But there weren’t.

Read this from the NPR (hardly a right wing source): https://www.npr.org/2020/03/06/812486517/bernie-sanders-call-for-young-voters-isn-t-working-out-the-way-he-planned