U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[Guest]

The more distance I've gained from the initial announcement of Kennedy's retirement, the more sanguine I am about the news.

Democrats should have been preparing themselves for the fact that Trump will most likely get at least 2 SC nominations, if not 3. I even posted sometime after the 2016 election that perhaps Democrats should allow Trump's nomination of Gorsuch to go through without filibustering it, and not forcing McConnell's hand to abolishing the SC nominee filibuster for him, since he's an ultra-conservative replacing an ultra-conservative, and should keep their powder dry for Trump's 2nd nomination, when perhaps they could get more traction among the populace for keeping the filibuster in place.

I think the news itself was particularly dismaying, because it came after a week of brutal SC decisions for liberals, but we're forgetting that Kennedy sided with the conservative wing on every one of those decisions.

That's not to say that members of historically (and currently) oppressed groups shouldn't be worried. But it is to say that this doesn't mark the end of the Republic yet. It's definitely a setback...and is maybe even a major setback, but now isn't the time to give up. There is an historically important election coming up in just a few months. Mueller is still working on his investigation. And we have an incompetent, boorish, obtuse President in office who seems constitutionally incapable of even attempting to grow his base and who delights in sabotaging members of his own party and scoring own goals with policies that are incredibly unpopular.

I think the person (I think it was Tywin) who mentioned how this moment has been 40 years or more in the making for the conservative movement, had a good point, and it echoes my own thoughts. 

Conservatism in the 20th century was likely at its nadir after Johnson's trouncing of Goldwater in '64. But instead of giving up, a long-term plan was put into effect, and they're now realizing their goals. I wish liberals and progressives would focus on long-term strategies, like maybe working towards efforts to getting groups who are ideologically aligned with liberals but who historically don't turn out, to the polls.

Anything is better than laying down and giving up.

[Martell Spy]

Voters don't want Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-kennedy-abortion-roe-v-wade-1342a3bd-6175-48a0-a858-0287e3e7411f.html

Quote

Abortion rights are in the balance with Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court, but most voters want the high court to keep abortion legal, according to polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

 

[Zorral]

This was a most clever political tactic to keep the base fired up and turn out to vote in the midterms, wasn't it?  As well as to build firewalls around the nazis' illegal and unconstitutional and treasonous actions.

It's also really interesting how that damned Deutche Bank connections to the orange nazi's debts just never come to an end, isn't it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html?

Quote

 

"Inside the White House’s Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening" --

But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration’s first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers — that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court. . . .

 

In the meantime, as the White House turned to stocking the lower courts, it did not overlook Justice Kennedy’s clerks. Mr. Trump nominated three of them to federal appeals courts: Judges Stephanos Bibas and Michael Scudder, both of whom have been confirmed, and Eric Murphy, the Ohio solicitor general, whom Mr. Trump nominated to the Sixth Circuit this month.

One person who knows both men remarked on the affinity between Mr. Trump and Justice Kennedy, which is not obvious at first glance. Justice Kennedy is bookish and abstract, while Mr. Trump is earthy and direct. But they had a connection, one Mr. Trump was quick to note in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice.

“Say hello to your boy,” Mr. Trump said. “Special guy.”

Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.

About a week before the presidential address, Ivanka Trump had paid a visit to the Supreme Court as a guest of Justice Kennedy. The two had met at a lunch after the inauguration, and Ms. Trump brought along her daughter, Arabella Kushner. Occupying seats reserved for special guests, they saw the justices announce several decisions and hear an oral argument.

Ms. Trump tweeted about the visit and posted a photo. “Arabella & me at the Supreme Court today,” she wrote. “I’m grateful for the opportunity to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand.”

If the overtures to Justice Kennedy from the White House were subtle, the warnings from its allies were blunt. Last month, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, went on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program to issue an urgent plea.

“My message to any one of the nine Supreme Court justices,” he said, was, “‘If you’re thinking about quitting this year, do it yesterday.’”

 

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think the person (I think it was Tywin) who mentioned how this moment has been 40 years or more in the making for the conservative movement, had a good point, and it echoes my own thoughts. 

Conservatism in the 20th century was likely at its nadir after Johnson's trouncing of Goldwater in '64. But instead of giving up, a long-term plan was put into effect, and they're now realizing their goals. I wish liberals and progressives would focus on long-term strategies, like maybe working towards efforts to getting groups who are ideologically aligned with liberals but who historically don't turn out, to the polls.

I think quite a few of us have noted this, and have been noting this, for years and years, particularly those of us who study history, and US history particularly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

How do you define that? If the Republicans simply keep pushing more and more extremely gerrimandered districts, dial voter suppression tactics and electoral registration purges up to 11 (backed by the Supreme Court), and combine that with electronic voting machines that don't leave a paper trail, at what point does the line get crossed from unhealthy democracy to (Russian-style) fake democracy?

I’m not sure one person can define that for everyone else, but for me personally the “break glass in case of emergency” moment will be when the things you listed start to get pushed at the national level.

Quote

And will that tipping point be observable enough to the general public that people will know that this is the critical moment to freak out and rush out into the streets?

Now here’s the rub. I think liberals will see it and act as you say, Some conservatives will too, though many won’t care so long it’s their guy who is doing it. And people who don’t identify with either party/political ideology will mostly do what they’re best at, nothing.

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Conservatism in the 20th century was likely at its nadir after Johnson's trouncing of Goldwater in '64. But instead of giving up, a long-term plan was put into effect, and they're now realizing their goals. I wish liberals and progressives would focus on long-term strategies, like maybe working towards efforts to getting groups who are ideologically aligned with liberals but who historically don't turn out, to the polls.

Anything is better than laying down and giving up.

As a followup to the earlier point to Relic, here's an example of what I consider to be solid choices in the face of this news:

leaving the country and getting citizenship in another country. 

It is an entirely reasonable thought to actually give up and leave at this point, and go somewhere with better laws and ethics. Particularly if you are a minority, are LGBT+, have pre-existing conditions, etc. There are plenty of entirely rational reasons to 'give up' and move on, instead of fighting, because at this point there is a reasonable chance that your life will be so severely impacted by the US government's direct intervention that it is not worth fighting it directly. 

This is what bothers me with the 'vote or shut up' thing - because for a lot of people, voting is simply not going to be enough to guarantee their safety and security in this country, and I would not begrudge them for a second wanting to leave. And being told that they should suck it up and vote by a person already outside of this country is especially not cool. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I’m not sure one person can define that for everyone else, but for me personally the “break glass in case of emergency” moment will be when the things you listed start to get pushed at the national level.

Effectively they already have.

The voting rights of Californians don't matter on a national level. California can vote 100% Democrat and it doesn't matter in the least to the national system. Voting rights in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina have all been attacked, and coincidentally those happen to be the states that largely decide what POTUS is going to be elected.

That's all it takes.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, كالدب said:

As a followup to the earlier point to Relic, here's an example of what I consider to be solid choices in the face of this news:

leaving the country and getting citizenship in another country. 

It is an entirely reasonable thought to actually give up and leave at this point, and go somewhere with better laws and ethics. Particularly if you are a minority, are LGBT+, have pre-existing conditions, etc. There are plenty of entirely rational reasons to 'give up' and move on, instead of fighting, because at this point there is a reasonable chance that your life will be so severely impacted by the US government's direct intervention that it is not worth fighting it directly. 

This is what bothers me with the 'vote or shut up' thing - because for a lot of people, voting is simply not going to be enough to guarantee their safety and security in this country, and I would not begrudge them for a second wanting to leave. And being told that they should suck it up and vote by a person already outside of this country is especially not cool. 

Yeah sure, that's rational for the small subset of the referenced groups who have the means and ability to do so. Not so much for the vast majority of the referenced groups who do not have the ability and means to do so. 

[S John]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Yeah sure, that's rational for the small subset of the referenced groups who have the means and ability to do so. Not so much for the vast majority of the referenced groups who do not have the ability and means to do so. 

Also, it's not just about voting now or in the future, but also kinda like... where have y'all been?  It's no secret that liberals don't turn out the way conservatives do.  Hopefully the wake-up call hasn't come too late.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yeah sure, that's rational for the small subset of the referenced groups who have the means and ability to do so. Not so much for the vast majority of the referenced groups who do not have the ability and means to do so. 

It's rational for everyone involved to want to do it, and consider their options. I admit, it's much harder than it seems, especially if you have family, but it's certainly becoming a bigger option to many, and the threat is becoming a lot larger to these people. 

We are at the point where certain people need to consider leaving regardless of what they may lose as a result. For them, 'voting or shutting up' is as poor a salve as 'the US will survive'. 

It would be an interesting decision at this point for someone from the US - likely either a Muslim or an African-American - to apply for refugee status from the US government in Canada. 

 

[Martell Spy]

Obama Breaks Silence: ‘You Are Right to Be Concerned’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/obama-breaks-silence-you-are-right-to-be-concerned?ref=home

Quote

 

Former President Barack Obama has made his first public comments in months, telling Democratic Party donors they are “right to be concerned” about the state of America.

While Obama stuck to his rule of not mentioning President Trump by name, his comments at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in California on Thursday made his thoughts very clear

 

 

[Kalbear]

At the very least, many, many people should heavily consider leaving red states at all costs. 

[Bonnot OG]

Lol people think we have real voting here. We vote on tuesdays, we don't get the day off to do it. Gerrymandering severly fucks with votes. Voting tations are closed down so there are less voting stations and longer lines to disenfranchise turn out. People of color are targeted with ridiclous voter ID laws and the areas they live in are highly gerrymandered to fuck with them. 

But yea, we totally don't have rigged elections here, and totally have real voting.

Last two elections that Republican presidential candidates won, they lost the popular vote. The EC is a joke and is another great example of how we don't have real votes. 
 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, كالدب said:

At the very least, many, many people should heavily consider leaving red states at all costs. 

Which will only exacerbate the problems that liberals already face in national elections and will ensure further losses.

[Bonnot OG]

3 minutes ago, كالدب said:

At the very least, many, many people should heavily consider leaving red states at all costs. 

Well that is a bad idea because red states being even more red, given how they have ridiclous power when it comes to the EC, would fuck the country even more. More left leaning individuals should be moving into red states to flip the EC on it's head and use it against the bigots. 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Which will only exacerbate the problems that liberals already face in national elections and will ensure further losses.

Yes, it absolutely will. So? Again, you're suggesting that to people who are actually in harms way - that they will have their family separated by repealing gay marriage, or be jailed for having abortions, or be put in jail because they're a minority - that they should just suck it up and deal with it because they might have to vote on things and help people in the blue states out. 

If that's your position, the obvious logical thing for you to call on is people in blue states to move to the red ones. Are you doing that?

[Guest]

Just now, Bonnot OG said:

Lol people think we have real voting here. We vote on tuesdays, we don't get the day off to do it. Gerrymandering severly fucks with votes. Voting tations are closed down so there are less voting stations and longer lines to disenfranchise turn out. People of color are targeted with ridiclous voter ID laws and the areas they live in are highly gerrymandered to fuck with them. 

But yea, we totally don't have rigged elections here, and totally have real voting.

Last two elections that Republican presidential candidates won, they lost the popular vote. The EC is a joke and is another great example of how we don't have real votes. 
 

I've posted at length, especially in arguments with conservative posters, about the roadblocks already in place making it much more difficult for PoC, the poor, women and other marginalized groups to exercise the franchise.

The solution to removing those impediments is not "vote less".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, كالدب said:

Effectively they already have.

The voting rights of Californians don't matter on a national level. California can vote 100% Democrat and it doesn't matter in the least to the national system. Voting rights in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina have all been attacked, and coincidentally those happen to be the states that largely decide what POTUS is going to be elected.

That's all it takes.

 

Eh, it’s a problem, no doubt, but it’s easier to undo all of that at the state level. Democrats just need to get their heads out of their backsides. What’s different is if it happens at the federal level, that’s it, game over. I have a hard time seeing how Democrats would be able to roll that back because it would be unlikely that they’d ever have unified control of government at that point.  

[S John]

2 minutes ago, كالدب said:

At the very least, many, many people should heavily consider leaving red states at all costs. 

Eh, I don't know man.   You're just handing it over at that point.   For one example, I think Texas could go purple given a few more cycles.  Lots of outsiders coming in, and mostly to the cities.  Georgia, too.

 

1 minute ago, Bonnot OG said:

Lol people think we have real voting here. We vote on tuesdays, we don't get the day off to do it. Gerrymandering severly fucks with votes. Voting tations are closed down so there are less voting stations and longer lines to disenfranchise turn out. People of color are targeted with ridiclous voter ID laws and the areas they live in are highly gerrymandered to fuck with them. 

But yea, we totally don't have rigged elections here, and totally have real voting.

Last two elections that Republican presidential candidates won, they lost the popular vote. The EC is a joke and is another great example of how we don't have real votes. 
 

We can agree that all of that is bullshit.  But none of it is prohibitive.  Inconvenient, absolutely.  Shitty, yes.  But this kind of shit is precisely what should be lighting a fire under everyone's ass to go to whatever lengths necessary to make sure you get to the polls while you still can.  Using it as an excuse to not vote does not help anybody.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, chiKanery et al. said:

Eh, it’s a problem, no doubt, but it’s easier to undo all of that at the state level. Democrats just need to get their heads out of their backsides. What’s different is if it happens at the federal level, that’s it, game over. I have a hard time seeing how Democrats would be able to roll that back because it would be unlikely that they’d ever have unified control of government at that point.  

But...it has happened at the federal level. SCOTUS has already ruled that these things were legal and allowed them to continue, or refused to hear the case. It can in theory be overturned, but that's something of a snowball effect - it's harder for democrats to vote, so they can't overturn the law, and then it gets worse, and they can't overturn THAT, etc. 

This has already happened. Earlier this year, among several other times in the last couple of years.

Have you broken the glass yet?

1 minute ago, S John said:

Eh, I don't know man.   You're just handing it over at that point.   For one example, I think Texas could go purple given a few more cycles.  Lots of outsiders coming in, and mostly to the cities.  Georgia, too.  

I'm saying that for a lot of people out there they should consider their own personal survival against the hope of a corrupt, flawed and biased democratic process saving them. 

As to Texas, no, it's almost certainly not going to go purple because of, well, voting restrictions and harassment and the like. In a perfect world with actual representative voting based on population? Sure. We're going further away from that, not closer.