- 11,974
- 3,257
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- 5,328
- 5,754
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
That report about Felicia Moore shutting down strip clubs lowkey hurt her at the polls. Sad to say but Atlanta don’t play about its strip clubs. Strippers vote too and there’s a whole lot of them out here.
- 21,528
- 43,552
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- 31,930
- 26,231
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
2016 is very obviously a profound hinge point in history.
and it seems like many leftist don't want to admit it because
it makes the sore loser-dom post 2016 primary look wildly irresponsible and stupid in hindsight.
I can admit that Hilary had some serious flaws as a candidate and in hindsight, Bernie (probably/ maaaybe) would have won.
but I think leftist need to be able to say; **** post 2016 primary behavior was probably not helpful
and Hilary was right about the stakes of the election.
Last edited:
dacomeup
Supporter
- 25,204
- 34,402
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
Disingenuous argument is disingenuous.
- 146,571
- 192,895
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
i need pro lifers to start talking about the costs involved with having a child
or hell how about having issues with school shootings
Quality of life of people because of the burdens of healthcare and just costs of living in general.. access to simple things like education and a decent meal consistently
- 6,407
- 15,493
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
2016 was important, so was 2020. I’m just not buying this selective powerlessness narrative put forth by a large number of Democrats.
If someone could tell me how Hillary Clinton, in 2017, would have been able to overcome the awesome power of Joe Manchin and the Senate Parliamentarian, I’d love to here it.
Right now, what I’m hearing is that if Bernie had been nicer to Clinton in early summer 2016, the GOP’s project of minority rule would have been stopped.
I’m not saying that you or Rusty are making this argument but that’s the dominant argument right now. It’s fixating on how a Democrat lost in 2016 in order to avoid confronting the sad reality around the Democrat who did win in 2020.
- 146,571
- 192,895
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 31,930
- 26,231
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Rusty's pal Matt Y had a good piece on this.
a democrat does 1.5 points better in 2016 and you probably win the senate.
you replace Scalia, and challenges to partisan gerrymandering are decided by a 5-4 liberal court.
2016 is the hinge point, by 2020 its 6-3 conservative court and all hope is lost.
Last edited:
- 31,930
- 26,231
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
2016 is why i've become much more cold blooded about the need to pander to conservative cultural views.
The situation is so bleak and dire for democrats,
they should be willing to say just about anything to win enough senate seats to end the filibuster,
end gerrymandering and add PR, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Greenland or wherever as states.
The situation is so bleak and dire for democrats,
they should be willing to say just about anything to win enough senate seats to end the filibuster,
end gerrymandering and add PR, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Greenland or wherever as states.
Last edited:
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,001
- 189,135
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I mentioned Jason Kander a few days ago. Matty stealing my work now too
Rusty's pal Matt Y had a good piece on this.
a democrat does 1.5 points better in 2016 and you probably win the senate.
you replace Scalia, and challenges to partisan gerrymandering are decided by a 5-4 liberal court.
2016 is the hinge point, by 2020 its 6-3 conservative court and all hope is lost.
- 8,261
- 6,896
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
Theres def two separate fights going on. Dems will always have the tougher climb because of the diversity of their voters but its getting imperative that we get our own dog whistles and soon.
- 14,209
- 34,447
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
I think you mean Pinochet-ish.
- 6,407
- 15,493
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Rusty's pal Matt Y had a good piece on this.
a democrat does 1.5 points better in 2016 and you probably win the senate.
you replace Scalia, and challenges to partisan gerrymandering are decided by a 5-4 liberal court.
2016 is the hinge point, by 2020 its 6-3 conservative court and all hope is lost.
Again, Clinton winning would be better than Trump winning. Democrats winning more down ballot races in 2016 would have been even better. At the same, good and better in this context means delaying the GOP’s drive to permanent minority rule.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, I’d imagine we would not get a Federalist Society appointee to fill Scalia’s seat. Beyond that, though, all bets would be off. The most likely outcome is that McConnell keeps that seat open. Capital would not allow a liberal Court to form.
COVID happens, it would not be as bad. Trump literally threw out a manual on how to deal with pandemics, after all. But Capital and therefore McConnell would still limit the American state’s capacity to respond. There would still be a big economic downturn which would open the door for the GOP to win big in 2020. In 2021, Scalia’s seat gets filled, Ginsberg’s newly vacated seat gets filled and later in the year Kennedy and maybe Thomas retire and those seats get filled.
- 6,407
- 15,493
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
- 17,643
- 42,801
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2017
Literally a damn fascist mafia he’s tryna assemble for his own benefit
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,001
- 189,135
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
I posted it because right now on leftist Twitter, Reddit, and other forums they are trying their best to blame liberals, and "the establishment" for the sad state of affairs in the court right now. Even saying they could have stopped it from happening in years past by "fighting harder"
But the issue with this is that when Clinton was out here warning folk what was at stake, some people chose to ignore it because they didn't like her. Which was ****ing stupid.
It's the opposite happening, Bernie warning, and centrist handwaving, I would call that ****ing stupid too.
I really don't respect Rex's argument because it sounds like a defection to be defensive. Like sure, the GOP has been and will be hostile to democracy. Clinton would not fix that. But a 5-4 court, no matter how short-lived, would be a powerful firewall for democracy. That is the reason to never give them an inch. The GOP made liberals pay so much for with their wins because they got lucky too. 2010 fell on a redistricting year, Scalia dying after 2014 (another election year people didn't take serious enough), RGB being dumb then years later dying.
I'm in here every day screaming about Manchin, Sinema, and other centrists needing to do something about the filibuster and court. They need to fix the current state of affairs right now because we might not get another chance for maybe 20 years. Hell the GOP has a chance to get a 7-2 court. Maybe 8-1. Things are about to get way worse for everyone.
I agree with RGB being stupid not to retire. I am pissed at Breyer now. I shaded liberal lawyers that wrote stupid **** defending conservative judges.
But it is also true that everyone got a warning this would happen. And some folk, instead of being clear-eyed about things, chose to ignore the important warnings because they didn't like the messenger.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,001
- 189,135
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
And this is why I am so cold-blooded about clowns like Manchin and Sinema dropping the nonsense and helping the Dems fix things while they have the power to fix things2016 is why i've become much more cold blooded about the need to pander to conservative cultural views.
The situation is so bleak and dire for democrats,
they should be willing to say just about anything to win enough senate seats to end the filibuster,
end gerrymandering and add PR, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Greenland or wherever as states.
Last edited:
- 146,571
- 192,895
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
wentz super duper religious and just went 2nd overall couple years ago
- 31,930
- 26,231
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
"aside from that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"
if a democratic president fills the seat, you 100% get challenges to gerrymandering, the voter suppression cases go differently ect.
that will more than delay GOP's minority rule status.
it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to handwave that.
the stakes of 2020 don't compare.
- 6,407
- 15,493
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
Rusty, I thought I was pretty clear that you aren’t making the argument that Democrats should not fight back in this current moment.
And I thought that I was pretty clear that the 2016 elections had real stakes. If you recall, I voted for Clinton largely because of the implications on the high court.
And I thought that I was pretty clear that the 2016 elections had real stakes. If you recall, I voted for Clinton largely because of the implications on the high court.
- 6,407
- 15,493
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2004
"aside from that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"
if a democratic president fills the seat, you 100% get challenges to gerrymandering, the voter suppression cases go differently ect.
that will more than delay GOP's minority rule status.
it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to handwave that.
the stakes of 2020 don't compare.
Again, it’s unlikely that a Democratic Senate yields a Federalist Society justice (although with Joey Manchin in the mix, anything is possible). But beyond that, it’d be unlikely that we get anyone onto the court and it stays 4-4 until Ginsberg dies and the conservatives control the court, 4-3.
- 7,629
- 13,458
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 63,001
- 189,135
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
Apprently it might be the same money that was reported stolen a while back
- 4,165
- 4,300
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
Well, we know it wasn’t stashed there by hurricane victims.
