511–520 of 1001 posts
Unfortunately modern activists and politicians want to make it seem like no reasonable person could disagree with them. This makes it impossible to engage in a dialogue and bridge a gap.
Some things have no gap. Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies. This drives most other politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People were horrible to each other online long before modern social media, and indeed in print and in person long before that. While some people do indeed pursue likes for their own sake, it's not the root cause of social aggression.
It's not the catalyst, it's the accelerant - when you have 1000 points for your troll post you're sure as heck gonna do more of them.
Remove the Publicly visible Like Count and those kind of conversations and connections are easy. The Like count makes people defensive or aggressive especially when they are called out in public leading to never ending reaction and counter reaction cycles. Without that dumb random signal interfering in conversations all kinds of strange connections are possible. I see it at work meetings between highly competitive pe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Precisely. There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change. For example: What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration? Healthcare? Nope. Climate change? Nope. A federal holiday for election days? Yes. Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes. That’s how you think about…
Voting and gerrymandering are the metagame. We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).
Reminds of me of 3rd grade when kids would make a christmas tree out of their scantron tests. That is what we need -- randomness added to voting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn... Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?
> Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid ... *Democratic Chuck Shumer, a Democrat, is a member of the Democratic Party. When used as an adjective the correct usage is “Democratic”
By analogy, you'll more often hear "Texas senator Mr Bean" (using the singular noun) vs "Texan senator Mr Bean" (using the adjective).
In any case, it's not something anyone should get worked up over.
The republicans know how to win, and will do so by any means necessary. The democrats seem happy taking the high road to yet another humiliating defeat. This is why I'm done voting and pretending it makes a difference.
Should Democrats win the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should prioritize (small d) democratic reforms, stuff that cannot be easily undone in 2024. In particular, make Washington DC a state. This is not hardball, it's just basic fairness: DC metro has one of the highest percentages of Black people, and DC statehood will make the Senate more representative of America (only partially - red states will still have an advantage).
My sense is that the Democratic party has an appetite for this. Should they gain power, they won't make the same mistakes. See HR 1.
I feel terrible for viewing this sad event through the lens of electoral politics, but RBG was a champion for voting rights.
The republicans know how to win, and will do so by any means necessary. The democrats seem happy taking the high road to yet another humiliating defeat. This is why I'm done voting and pretending it makes a difference.
This is my conclusion too. Not only are democrats losers they perfectly fine with it too. They've let republicans out politic them every since Reagan. Another in a long line of humiliating political defeats at the hands of big money.
Absolutely. My family is feverishly working on how to leave this hellscape of a country we’re in. The United States is dead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.
The Senate doesn’t actually have to vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. > and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court There is nothing except precedent to say the President can’t just directly appoint justices. And then when the appointments are inevitably challenged, who would ultimately rule on it? The Supreme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democrat senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid first introduced a filibuster for judicial nominees, and then ending the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was politically convenient for them. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/mitch-mcconn... Do you think that might have affected the ability of the current president to successfully appoint a supreme court justice now?
Do you think the republicans would not have ended it for Kavanaugh?