AOC: Expand the court.

[AndyDWUW 3,971]

3 minutes ago, Fresco said:

Bernie is not on the ballot. He did not get enough primary votes. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. We don't need to argue about his policies being socialist instead of democrat. That is all off-topic. If you can't see the differences between the republican platform and the democrat platform, you are not looking very hard. Granted that Trump refused to tell us his plans for a 2nd term in the debate even when specifically asked to do that. It involves cutting programs that get poor people money, defunding social security,  and enriching military contractors, and businesses.

SCOTUS needs 7 justices instead of 9. That way, we get rid of the 2 most recent that democrats fought against.  The remaining 7 have been there for years and the GOP can't complain about them.  It also avoids the process of getting more new justices confirmed. Maybe later, it goes back to 9, who knows.  Though adding 2 more justices would be better than doing nothing. Dems need to use their power, assuming they can get some.

 

who said bernie is on the ballot?????

i am confusion.gif

It was on topic to the person I was responding, saying Bernie’s ideas are extreme and not moderate. When in fact, his ideas ARE moderate.

If Biden chooses to adopt some of those widely supported policies, he’ll have a better chance of winning.

[Fresco 1,688]

4 minutes ago, AndyDWUW said:

who said bernie is on the ballot?????

i am confusion.gif

It was on topic to the person I was responding, saying Bernie’s ideas are extreme and not moderate. When in fact, his ideas ARE moderate.

If Biden chooses to adopt some of those widely supported policies, he’ll have a better chance of winning.

This is not about Bernie. The number of justices on the Supreme Court is not about Bernie.

[AndyDWUW 3,971]

Just now, Fresco said:

This is not about Bernie. The number of justices on the Supreme Court is not about Bernie.

You’re literally the one that said “Bernie is not on the ballot” when no one was arguing that 

 

Nothing is on Bernie at this point.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,681]

7 minutes ago, Fresco said:

Bernie is not on the ballot. He did not get enough primary votes. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. We don't need to argue about his policies being socialist instead of democrat. That is all off-topic. If you can't see the differences between the republican platform and the democrat platform, you are not looking very hard. Granted that Trump refused to tell us his plans for a 2nd term in the debate even when specifically asked to do that. It involves cutting programs that get poor people money, defunding social security,  and enriching military contractors, and businesses.

SCOTUS needs 7 justices instead of 9. That way, we get rid of the 2 most recent that democrats fought against.  The remaining 7 have been there for years and the GOP can't complain about them.  It also avoids the process of getting more new justices confirmed. Maybe later, it goes back to 9, who knows.  Though adding 2 more justices would be better than doing nothing. Dems need to use their power, assuming they can get some.

 

Its not dictatorial/authoritarian to push for policies the base/the people want. That’s called being a hero. If anything, Biden’s the dictator saying “I’m the base” and “I won because I disagreed with the base.” Lies. Lies Lies.

Let’s stop saying Bernie is the progressive movement. It was never about stanning him like we’re a part of the KHive. Its about the policy first. It’s politics. The base wants his ideas, so let’s not step in the way of progressives saving America by saying **** like “Bernie’s over.”

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

[AndyDWUW 3,971]

39 minutes ago, Luc said:

Sadly people always vote a little bit more right-wing than the policies they actually favor. That's because the policies are asked one-at-a-time in polls. People support M4A if it's the only thing. People support raising the minimum wage if that's the only thing. Same for many leftist ideas. But if you put them all together and ask people 'Do you favor implementing M4A AND the Green New Deal AND raising the minimum wage AND changing the electoral system AND making university tuition free AND forgiving student loan debt', every extra thing you add less people will support it, because they're worried about rising taxes or just generally don't like too much change. Otherwise Bernie would've easily won the primaries, because he ran on those populr policies. So how do you work around this? It's quite simple, you either choose to do one or two of these every four years (let's say that criminal justice reform and the green new deal are the most crucial at the moment), or you go halfway in all at the same time (which is what Biden is proposing). As soon as progressive legislation is passed, it becomes nearly impossible to revert it - just look at ObamaCare, so it's a stepping stone for more progressive policies.

Biden will expand ObamaCare to insure 80% of the currently uninsured and include a public option. It will only be a small step towards full coverage with a subsidized public option. And then it will only be a small step to universal public single-payer healthcare. But doing it all at once is politically very risky. The more Biden's plans get realized, the more realistic Bernie's plans become. I agree that corporate (and billionaire) donations need to be forbidden by the way. That's the other most crucial thing that needs to happen to shift the centre leftwards.

 

By the way, I just found this and thought it was very illustrative of how important it is to convince centrists/even centre-right people:

Now imagine 2% of the 11% in the Green camp don't vote. That means Biden (or 'Labor') would need to convince an extra 2% from the conservative camp to get a majority. If all greens vote, Biden doesn't need those conservative votes to win and can move more to the centre.

The danger of incrementalism is that it has, for the majority part, resulted in spineless democrats bending the knee to Republican proposal.

Obamacare was what Romney was going to offer as president, and came from Republican think tanks.

link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/#22287a5d6187

Incrementalism always allows for a rightward influence, such as healthcare. The illusion that “this isnt the right time” to fix some of these issues outright is just that, an illusion. 

There shouldn’t be incrementalism in healthcare where people are dying every single day in the richest country in the world, by not being able to afford healthcare. Just as there was no incrementalism approach to slavery, to a woman’s right to vote, and other social movements. 
 

I’m not a disagreeing with you 100% and trying to fight, but want to show you the dangers of incrementalism.

[Fresco 1,688]

24 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

Its not dictatorial/authoritarian to push for policies the base/the people want. That’s called being a hero. If anything, Biden’s the dictator saying “I’m the base” and “I won because I disagreed with the base.” Lies. Lies Lies.

Let’s stop saying Bernie is the progressive movement. It was never about stanning him like we’re a part of the KHive. Its about the policy first. It’s politics. The base wants his ideas, so let’s not step in the way of progressives saving America by saying **** like “Bernie’s over.”

Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

This is not the time nor the place to advocate for socialist policies.  There were 22 people running for the democrat nomination. Biden got the votes to win the democrat nomination. Biden is the base, because he won the primary votes.  More people voted for Biden, not Sanders. Let it go for now. Biden is on the ballot.

This is a thread about the number of justices on the Supreme Court. You are also off-topic.  

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Just consider the Supreme Court illegitimate given the illegitimate confirmation hearings, and don't follow or listen to Supreme Court rulings. 

There's nothing really that compels their rulings to actually be followed, it's just tradition.

Not to mention the fact the SC once ruled segregation as okay and that there can't be interracial marriage, so the whole institution of the SC is problematic and if the Republicans wanna play it this way and break all the rules, then it's time to do the same.

[shane_c 480]

People just should have voted for Hillary. The people crying loudest about this are the same people that voted for Jill Stein and laughed when they were warned that the supreme court was on the ballot in 2016. Now they want it fixed when they caused the problem.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,681]

1 hour ago, BillieGOAT said:

I’m just trying to look at it logically.

I, of course, know what I would like to see happen because of my personal beliefs.. but I’m saying that it isn’t a logical solution to this obvious flaw in the structure of the supreme court.

If we want to fix the problem permanently then dems need to move towards term limits for justices. THAT is a permanent solution to decades of super-majority reign happening. Thats the way I see this problem being solved permanently.

What’s better tho? A switching majority or a constant republican rule? I’d prefer an impeachment or some other removal but Nancy waited too long and did nothing. Now we have like 0 options. Its not the worst thing if Biden expands the court....

[caulixtla 2,170]

2 hours ago, Gagaloo911 said:

There's nothing really that compels their rulings to actually be followed, it's just tradition.

Indeed. If the Supreme Court decides to repeal the ACA, Biden can pull out a $20 bill, and go full Andrew Jackson, [1] cheerfully ignoring the Supreme Court and telling insurance companies they still have to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

[StarstruckIllusion 53,681]

3 hours ago, Fresco said:

This is not the time nor the place to advocate for socialist policies.  There were 22 people running for the democrat nomination. Biden got the votes to win the democrat nomination. Biden is the base, because he won the primary votes.  More people voted for Biden, not Sanders. Let it go for now. Biden is on the ballot.

This is a thread about the number of justices on the Supreme Court. You are also off-topic.  

Um, youre the one who cant let go of Bernie... I literally just said he’s not relevant 😭

The base is the people. The people want the “socialist” policies. The people don’t even agree with Biden, his enthusiasm was in the trash when he won, and people are more anti-Trump than pro Biden. The base is Biden’s boss and the base can vote him out, just as they voted him in. They only voted for him bc they thought it took a moderate Republican to defeat a real one (meanwhile Biden’s doing slightly worse with them than Hillary did.)

Yes, my thread is a thread about the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Maybe you shouldnt have helped to derail it. But I don’t mind bc I acknowledge everything connects like web and this has a lot to the current topic. 

[PartySick 174,309]

I agree tbh.

I'm still having trouble figuring out how an impeached president is able to nominate someone in the first place

[27monster27 16,058]

11 hours ago, TimisaMonster said:

OMG...that sounds like a nightmare, but honestly no matter who wins there will be civil unrest and it won't be pretty...this year of 2020 was a COMPLETE disaster for so many reasons...like

The best idea is to 100% avoid any politics on social media from November 3rd until at minimum a month or two after. Toxicity on the internet is about to spike to a peak, and it will not be pretty.

[Fish 6,259]

the real problem is the whole us political system. period. 

[REALITY 80,256]

14 hours ago, President Biden said:

Absolutely not. Biden will never do that, he is a decent & moderate man. FDR tried court packing any anyone who studied American history knew it was a partisan disaster.

FDR was also one of the greatest presidents of all time, but okay....