HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » radius777 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 34 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 09:37 PM
Number of posts: 3,224

Journal Archives

Trump is like Freddy Krueger

in that he always comes back alive just when you think he's politically dead.

I thought he was finished when the Access Hollywood tapes came out - no way he could come back from it and yet he did. Then Mueller and Ukraine should've done it but it didn't.

Joe is in a good position but realize that most people don't care much about Trump's taxes, but about his horrible record as it relates to their everyday lives, ie his mismanagement of covid which has resulted in 200k dead Americans, his tax cuts for the rich, his assault on healthcare and preexisting conditons and social security/medicare, his disregard for democratic norms, his war on voting, his racial diviseness and chaos, etc. The tax story helps to strengthen Joe's message but by itself can't knock Trump out.

Hillary eviscerated Donnie in the first debate.

Even on RW sites they said he lost badly.

She went after his taxes, his corrupt business practices, his racism/sexism, ties to Putin, etc.

The problem is the second debate became what defined the narrative, where he was 'looming' over her.

Her campaign team overall was weak though, they thought they 'had it' and didn't do much to knock Trump out like he needed to be. It's something I worry a little about also with the Biden camp as well, it has a similar dynamic. The difference is Trump has a record to defend and there are 200k dead due to his lies. Biden also is white man with an appeal to culturally conservative whites, while Hillary is disliked (sexism) by the same demographic.

Won't affect his core base

who don't care what he does as long as he gives them tax cuts, racism, judges, etc. He's a corrupt thug but he's 'their thug' ie the 'bodyguard of Western civilization' like he said at the convention.

It could affect some of his soft support ie moderate suburbanites and small business people who pay alot of taxes. In a polarized country decided by relatively small margins, if it shifts even 2% of the electorate or so in our direction that is something. We'll see.

Repubs have intended this long before Trump.

The GOP and the conservative movement has long desired hard-right courts as a means to bypass democracy and establish minortarian rule. It's why even the 'respectable Repubs' were on board with blocking Garland and were so quick to flip flop in ramming this nominee through this time.

+1. A retrograde white minority is establishing rule

over a diverse majority for decades to come, enabled by serious imbalances (Senate, EC, USSC, etc) the founders could not have foreseen.

Agree. Breyer and Thomas are next to die or retire.

Why just have 6-3 court when it can be 8-1.

Repubs care little for democracy and have long desired control of society via the courts.

We need to fight Barrett hard, as it could blow up in their faces. Even if she's confirmed anyway it could hurt Repubs in this election and future ones, especially amongst demographics that are trending Dem.

You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative

to support (b) your opinion that we should not focus on it in the hearings.

They are two separate issues and you can support (b) without having to grasp at (a) which is an obtuse bothsiderist piece that debunks nothing.

Atwood's novel was based upon Charismatic Catholic cults and sects of the type Barrett was (is?) a part of - and is thus relevant as a means to attempt to understand and critique Barrett and her worldview. The exact cult is not relevant to the critique - the ideology is - which all of those groups share.

"It was a different one but the same idea." - Atwood

The Vox piece that purports to 'debunk the libs' is the typical both-siderist crap that intentionally misses the big picture.

Atwood's work is a novel, not a documentary - thus there is no need to be precise, as the fictional world/cult at the center of her novel is an amalgam of Charismatic Catholic groups (of the type Barrett was part of, which also used the 'handmaid' term). Such misogynistic religious sects were (and are) a backlash to feminism and civil rights. IOW, it's about the hateful ideology inherent to such groups - and how that could've shaped the views of a prospective Supreme Court justice such as Barrett, whose decisions could have far ranging effects on the lives of Americans of all types.

Nobody cares what the hardcore conservatives think - they aren't voting for us anyway. We care about our base as well as gettable moderates, swing voters and independents.

The archetypal swing voter is the moderate suburbanite who is pro-choice. Polls show about 2/3 of voters overall are pro-choice, including about 1/5 of Trump's 2016 voters in many states. Morning Joe (a Republican) was talking about this the other day, that he went through some of the data in swing states and there is a possibility those pro-choice voters could worry about Roe being overturned. What seemed unlikely years ago with a fairly divided court could become all too real with a hard-right 6-3 court.

The issue of choice is inextricably tied to women's rights and to the liberalism that RBG (and hopefully everyone posting on a site like this) believes in. It is a core belief that must be fought for. It is also a class issue as the anti-choice position merely equates to 'coat hangers' and backalley abortions for poor women, while rich women will still have access to safe procedures.

This does not mean we focus solely on this issue, or to the exclusion of other 'bread and butter' issues like the economy, jobs, healthcare, prescription drugs etc. We can focus on both social and economic justice while tying it all together as fighting for an America that is better for the wide spectrum of middle and working class women and men of all colors and creeds. Everything Biden and Dems have been saying recently points to this strategy.

Bush v. Gore asserted that the Constitution gives state legislatures

the final authority in selecting the slate of electors if the legislature feels the official vote can't be trusted or is somehow in doubt.

If you read the Atlantic article several ugly scenarios are possible, knowing what Trump/Barr/GOP are capable of at this point.

As the OP correctly points out, our system is rickety and the Constitution does not spell out or much less guarantee a fair election (based on the will of the people) or peaceful transition of power. Much of what we view as a 'normal election' is based upon custom.

Threat of mass boycotts of the state are imo a better tactic.

I was thinking about this. From now we should simply threaten to organize mass boycotts of any state (including any major industries and products) that would seek to undermine the will of the voters of that state. No party or politician wants to be blamed for their state and local economies being bankrupted - which is what we can easily do to them with 70+ million angry Democrats.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ... 34 Next »