Jump to content

Killjoybear

Members
  • Content Count

    51,839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Killjoybear

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    Array

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

20,838 profile views
  1. Yeah, him making the VRA null and void, making the most racist scotus decision since Korematsu and deciding corporations are people is definitely the person to back for respect.
  2. Except that doesn't matter when the swing vote is Kavanaugh and barrett is on. You're counting on Roberts - the guy who said that the Muslim ban was fine and that we didn't need the VRA because it had worked so far - to uphold more voting rights as if that is actually going to happen.
  3. There's another alternative - assassination. If people don't want to change the laws or change the counts there has traditionally been one solution to serving for life terms.
  4. I was literally told a few weeks ago that I needed to respect the court and not assume that they would make bad decisions because of reasons. I am emphatically dunking on that bullshit.
  5. HEY GUYS DONT WORRY YOU SHOULD RESPECT THE SCOTUS DECISIONS AND PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT ONE TIME THEY DIDNT SUCK
  6. Yes! And the point is that no one knows if this matters!
  7. Early voting data suuuuuuuucks and is basically a rorschach test
  8. I'm actually now more on board with doing it. McConnell recently said that most of the work that the Trump presidency would be undone soon and at least in the next 4 years - but this (referring to Barrett) won't be undone for a generation. I want to fuck that up, like, in the first 8 weeks. I want to make McConnell see exactly how little his soul was sold for, how useless his efforts ended up being, and how weak his reach actually was.
  9. Its cute how people think polls are the score that determines the outcome of a game.
  10. And those were among both parties which is the point. Polarization refers to how the two parties are separated against each other and how much of a person's identity is wrapped up in their political party. Then you're not understanding the point being made. FDR is a great example of no polarization - people of both parties were happy to vote for him, overwhelmingly so. Jim Crow and women's rights were strongly favored by BOTH parties. Again, keep up! Oh fuck that noise. I'm not remotely saying that things were good or fair then - I'm saying that for a long time parties were largely not how people identified themselves as who they were. There were plenty of racist democrats, there were plenty of sexist democrats, Republicans were often some of the most progressive people on a wide swath of issues (including things like segregation and voting rights), etc. You couldn't easily say that Republicans were the party of racists. Everyone sucked. And honestly, that's another way that the US could go towards lack of polarization - if everyone goes back to hating minorities and women we'll see a lot less polarization.
  11. From a partisan perspective? Yes. Democrats were running the biggest charge against desegregation then! The country had a lot of division, but the important thing was that it wasn't exclusively along party lines like it is now. Party identity wasn't nearly as big a deal as it is now as far as actual identity. The GOP is overwhelmingly white, rural, and protestant. Absurdly so. It wasn't just pinkos, but yeah, the graph above pretty much tells the same thing I said - we were super polarized through about 1929, then we hit less, and then it went up around 1990.
  12. When we've not had major division between the parties has been when the US has had a major external threat. The least polarized time was between the great depression and the end of the cold war, at least as far as identifying with a party and agreeing on common truths and values. I'm pretty skeptical of us getting to that again without that external threat. Maybe in 20-30 years when we are fighting for scraps of the world's resources we'll align - though it probably won't be a liberal alignment. It's reasonable to say that the GOP is more involved in stoking this for a variety of reasons - conservatives tend to favor authoritarianism, tend to favor tribal identity and ingroup values, the GOP is more in line with one specific ethnic and religious group compared to the Democratic party which tends to be needing a number of groups to align to common causes. But the notion that this is something specific to conservatives only? Please.
  13. Yep, there'd be that 'the other side is evil' bit, right on time. Thanks!
  14. It's literally what liberals are doing too, both here and elsewhere. This isn't anything specific to conservatives; this is specific to humans. And no, it's not about the 'religious mindset' - it's about human beings not being computers and not making choices on rational thought most of the time. Because tell me true - if a Republican campaigned on the above, would YOU vote for them? Pretty doubtful.
×
×
  • Create New...