This would be amazing if he can do it. At least he's promising good changes vs trump promising judgment day on day one...
Didn't he literally say he would take vengeance on all his political opponents day one? Then the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity?
Yes. He said both what I wrote and wanting revenge, saying he will be a dictator for one day, day one. This video has both clips, if you want to skip to 8:17 for the revenge and judgment day after that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNzzOwiebvM
It is weird that they dicked around for 4 years on this, though.
Still, vote blue, your vassals beg you (Australian here).
4 years of daily Republican sabotage of the US government. Democrats are not perfect. They are also not the problem at hand.
Undoing the amount of damage they caused takes time. Biden inherited a spiraling economy, hundreds of thousands of people sick and dying, and a coup attempt that nearly got a bunch of people killed.
Not to mention all the idiotic shit the prior president had done while in office, such as austerity cuts that fucked social programs, legal systems, and low and middle income Americans.
It will take 12-16 years of unified democrat rule to fix corruption, regulatory capture, anti-trust for monopolies, universal healthcare, infrastructure investments that don't get slashed by idiotic presidents, etc.
Four years of chemotherapy isn't nearly enough when we have policy tumors and R&D funding cut abscesses from fucking idiots like Regan, Bush, and Trump.
Hmmm, genuinely improving the lives of Americans vs fire and brimstone and a dictator. Tough choice for Americans in November /s
Get everyone you can to vote in November, seriously. Trump's faction is barely scraping by. We can do this.
Just pack the goddamn court. There's ONE conservative justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who came to power having received more votes than his opponent, and that's Clarence Thomas, the man whose loyalties can be bought with a luxury vacation and whose wife aided and abetted insurrectionist traitors.
The ENTIRE conservative wing of the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Every single one of them. And you know what? Thanks to the GOP, it only takes 50 votes to approve a supreme court justice. It used to be sixty, but they changed the rules so they could more conveniently destroy America.
Easier than a constitutional amendment, but it still requires 60 votes in the senate to expand the number of justices in the court.
There needs to be a true check to the complete corruption of the supreme court.
We need,
The Ultra Supreme Court XXL
I’m wishing he had packed the courts when he had the chance.
Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.
The fact that the US has to 'pack the courts' to get anything through shows how broken the system is.
Not that any other country is better but still, you'd think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate
Plenty of countries are far 'better'.
Oh probably, but I didn't want a bunch of Yankees jumping down my throat, and I don't know enough about other countries' legal systems to comment
You're 100% correct.
Fuck procedure. Dems need to act instead of just talking about shit. I'm legit terrified for this next election.
And you think that wasn't the wanted outcome.
He never had the chance, Manchin was pretty outspoken about his opposition to it.
True, I was just dreaming for a minute.
no because that would actually have worked
The skeptic in me says democrats love not being in power cause they don’t have to be responsible for what actually happens.
And they get more donations
add ranked choice
Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I'm not going to throw away my vote or my delegate's vote.
Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we're at it?
Yes please. As someone who isn't in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
Also, prisoners should get a vote.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.
A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don't exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that's pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.
Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don't get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don't realize they are part of the U.S.
Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.
So PR is a colony
Isn't ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You'd have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?
Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.
Doesn’t the constitution explicitly grant states the right to decide how they hold their elections?
The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn't even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state's presidential electors are appointed. That didn't stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren't allowed to decide how to run their state's elections.
Now, you'd think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don't pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who's going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don't know yet!
Make every US citizen a Supreme Court justice when they turn 18. There’s nothing in the constitution that says you can’t do that. Put cases up to popular vote every year or two. Also, whatever law passed to do this would count as senate approval because who’s going to strike it down… the Supreme Court?
There’s nothing in the constitution that says dogs can't play basketball.
This meme is great but it drives me crazy. There are certainly multiple eligibility requirements to play on a school basketball team, including age and being a registered student, which would prevent a dog from qualifying.
Don't stomp on Air Bud's dreams.
There is that basketball court that's on top of the Supreme Court.....does that mean another Air Bud sequel but this time he's a justice?
This is hilarious. I'm sure someone with more bandwidth than me can point out a dozen reasons why this is bad, but fuck if it isn't funny and appealing.
Yeah but what we have now is clearly bad too.
We’ve already got a partisan court and the decisions affect us all anyway, so…
Hopefully he succeeds. The court is fucked
I can't imagine how he possibly will. R is happy just the way things are.
People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a better chance of that happening than Biden winning.
Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.
PACK THE FUCKING COURT! You're in that office to serve the people not the fucking system. Doesn't matter anyway republicans are going to destroy everything they can get their hands on.
Yeah, why would you try to actually solve a problem instead of just applying a band-aid that the next administration can rip of again (by incresing the size of the court again)?
Every solution that works within the system would be a band-aid. The entire system is band-aids. The government set up by a group of wealthy white men almost 250 years ago for a population 130 times smaller than it is now simply does not and cannot work in today's world.
If he doesn't do it, Trump will if he wins.
He can't do it with a Republican House and a Senate that requires 60 votes to do anything.
That's the real problem, but too many people here and elsewhere are unaware of the limitations on how the legislative process works. Anything like this is pretty much DOA and purely ceremonial. I'm happy for all of the positive things Biden has been able to get done in spite of such gridlock, but amendment level change in this country is just not at all possible right now.
Nope. And while the call for a Constitutional Convention to re-do the whole thing currently has more support (28 states out of 34 required), it's generally coming from red states and would require 3/4 of the states to approve it. So that's a non-starter too.
Well, I mean. if their rhetoric has hit a tipping point, maybe there wont be 60 for long.
And even if he could, there's literally zero reason to think he would. This is more empty campaign rhetoric like back in 2020.
That's the thing that kills me, he makes these promises that he KNOWS he can't get done, which leads to the whole "Well, Democrats never do anything!" argument.
What he NEEDS to say is "Here's what I want to do, but I need your help throwing out the bastards in the House and Senate blocking it! Here are their names, let's get them gone!"
Yep, this is the carrot that will never be given to us, standard DNC playbook.
No talkie talkie. Fucking do.
Explain how.
The reforms backed by Biden would need congressional approval and the constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states in a process that seems nearly impossible to succeed.
Why doesn't he just bypass congress and call it an official act?
He's a "soft" Democrat that cares about "optics" 🙄
But practically speaking there's no way for him to enforce it without threatening violence and there's no chance that would go over well even with other democrats
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.
Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC's presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I'm mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema already said they weren't going to support that, so what do you suggest the President do without a Senate majority?
It's crazy how often I see people doing this; they're ardently against Trump's efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn't do x y, or z when those aren't things that fall under his purview.
What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it's the neo-liberal I like?
Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.
But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.
So, in effect: "idk do SOMETHING"? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?
There's an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.
he has absolute immunity to whatever courtesy of the supreme court.
Biden doesn't. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.
It does not work that way
Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.
I think I see what you're saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn't have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.
Those two should've been kicked out of the party a long time ago. Both are up for reelection this year and are not running as a democrat.
What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn't have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.
Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it's not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R's will respect the filibuster if it's in their way at this point though.
You don't have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won't betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.
Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying "It'd be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we're in power." is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren't naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.
Oh then it's okay he didn't even try anything until he realized he was so unpopular people are asking him to step down.
That's not what I said bro.
People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn't. Fixing SCOTUS isn't going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.
On that last part, you're not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an "official act".
Yep, Biden is under the delusion that representatives vote on policies based on what their constituents want.
What would you have recommend he do?
Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.
Like he's doing
Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!
Not an American, but increasing SC members would seem like a good thing to do. The more people on it, the harder it is to stack.
Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.
The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law. The President can't* appoint more without Congress passing a law adding more.
*Of course, that was before they ruled that Presidents are totally immune from any prosecution, so who the fuck knows now.
The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law.
This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.
I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx :
“Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.
There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it's just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.
Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it's not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.
There's no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it's critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.
it's almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.
Stack the fucking court Joe. I don't care if there are 500 Supreme Court Justices.
Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.
So we need record turnout for that. Vote.
Just saying, he could officially eliminate a few justices in the short term.
Kicks in the door, guns blazing ... official presidential business 😎
They had the house, the senate and the white house before the mid terms and they squandered it
Are you talking about the period in which Sinema and Manchin actively sabotaged the agenda of their own party?
Vote and volunteer to help others get to the booths if they can't on their own. We know they want to do everything they can to make voting harder for the blue. Getting the blue to stay home is their only chance of winning. If everyone votes, there is no longer a republican party. (or those that are around won't matter, they won't be able to strip rights from the American people)
Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.
He needs to push hard and fast.
Incrementalists don't do that.
You mean conservatives, but I agree. Our less-fascist conservative party doesn't like to even attempt too much progress; it would upset their owners.
You mean conservatives
Incrementalists believe in doing as little as possible and would do nothing if they thought they could get away with it. Conservatives believe in fascism and will implement it as quickly as we let them. Incrementalists believe in letting them.
The most amazing ideas always come when the election draws close. But he can't implement any of them because there is no time.
Good thing Biden already fulfilled his previous election promises. Student loans are a thing of the past.
He rescheduled the fuck out of weed too right….riiiight?
Whoah whoah whoah. He said "push for", not implement. He'll do his best!
Just let me get that barn door for you Democrats.
This needs to happen.
38 states to agree on that constitutional amendment ?
Which states ?
Bush full of birds, but our hands are still empty...
Biden had four fucking years to do something, half of that time Dems controlled both House and Senate.
But he doesn't start talking about it till right before the election as a promise for something he'll "look into" in January
Dems controlled the Senate with the slimmest majority possible. One fucker that owns a coal company was able to tank all meaningful climate bills and there was nothing Biden or anyone else could do about it. You can forget about any progressive policies in that environment, lol. Biden did well with the tools he was given.
Dems controlled the Senate with the slimmest majority possible
And four years ago Biden wouldnt shut up about how only he could work with a Republican Senate.
Long before we dreamed if 50 seats.
As soon as that was on the table, it switched to 50 accomplishes everything. And almost immediately after we got that. Biden said it wasn't enough
Three big goalpost moves in like 6 months, that shit is noticable to voters and some can remember the last election, and not take Biden on his word again.
You’re supposed to be angry at the people preventing progress, not the people trying to create progress.
Promising progress and intentionally not fulfilling the promise is, indeed, preventing progress. Of course the R's are awful. The D's are also shitty and I hold them to a higher standard.
You’re misplacing the blame, friend
Tag his username, he's usually like this
This is like saying we can't criticize the police because criminals are worse...
I love how people blame Biden for shit the racist rapist with 34 felonies did. The amount of mental gymnastics that requires is amazing. Unless you're not a real person and at this point, I kinda hope you're not.
Bruh....
How is it you read something like:
We're not fighting fascists enough
And your take away
That guy likes fascists
Seriously, what steps of logic did you get to thinking I'm a trump supporter?
It's 2024, you can't imagine someone doesn't like Biden but hates trump?
What in the hell are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong person because you're quoting shit that wasn't in what I replied to. You broken?
How is it you read something like:
I mean, I thought the "like" was a clear signal I was paraphrasing...
But overestimating people is a flaw I openly admit
Biden has been successful at getting bipartisan legislation passed over the last few years. That doesn't mean that everything can be done. It horse shit that you think that because he wasn't able to convince any Republicans and lost a turn coat and coal barron that it's his fault, or that he mislead with his "working across the aisle" comments.
To address one of your other comments, this shit is the reason people might believe your a Trump supporter. The same shit rhetoric day in and day out. There's being critical and there's being beneficial to Trump. You frequently sit on the Trump benefits side of comments.
Not sure why you're getting negative votes. You're right. But Dems still haven't learned that the days of working across party lines is a dream from a bygone era.
Old man dreams.
You can't even get moderates to understand if the best we can do is a tie, it's harder to even manage that.
Anyone that can look at the last 16 years of the party and say with a straight face we're making the right moves isn't worth listening to.
There is absolutely zero benefit to running Hillary/Biden types rather than an Obama type
It's very disingenuous to say the Democratic party controlled the Senate while having the House majority. The Senate was 48 Democratic, 2 Independents who caucused with the Democratic Senators, and 50 Republicans with the VP casting tie-breakong votes. Very little legislation could be passed because of the filibuster, which needed 51 votes to reform and both Machines and Lineman stating they absolutely would not go along with that. The Senate could approve most nominees, and pass reconciliation (ie 3 types of budget-related bills) once a year. They had no path the expand the court or codify Roe or anything like that with the "majority" they had. We need either 51 Senators who will amend the filibuster (or get rid of it) or 61 Senators to overcome the filibuster to really have the ability to get anything substantial done.
Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?
Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?
What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true? And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn't we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?
Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?
Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator.
Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?
In 2020? We didn't know yet that Sinema would do a 180 after being elected or that Manchin would be such a dick.
What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true?
I already addressed that.
And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn't we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?
Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won't vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.
Historically, a contested convention or not running the incumbent is a losing proposition. But I don't care who the Democratic party nominates in this election, I will vote for them up and down the ballot. The presidential nominees are going to be shitty until we can collectively get our heads out of our asses and turn up it overwhelming numbers in the primaries to get progressives in state legislatures to overhaul our election process. It will take a constitutional amendment to unshitify the presidential election.
Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator
Oh ok...
So despite Biden spending 8 years in Obama's White House and getting a literal front row seat...
Biden was just too stupid to realize shit changed?
Or you think he knew and intentionally lied about it in that primary so he'd be the candidate even tho he knew the only reason to go with him was bullshit?
Like, you get that's where your logic leads right?
Biden is either:
Dumb as shit and if ignorant of modern politics
He knew what reality was like, but lied to become an ineffectual president on purpose. Not just bad because he put himself over the country, but he did it in the middle of a fascists takeover. Literally, there was a failed insurrection days before he took office.
Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.
My dude, Biden has had more bipartisan success than Obama did. So I really don't think you have a winning point here.
Like, you get that's where your logic leads right?
No, but I get that it's where you insist on taking it.
Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.
You have it wrong, this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe. O will vote blue regardless. Will you?
, this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe
There are 10s of millions of voters Biden needs to convince, and every indication is he's not going to be able to convince enough, especially not the tens of thousands up for grabs in battleground states.
It's easier to switch out Biden while there's still time than to convince all those people.
You're worried about forcing everyone into making a smart decision. We're talking about the American public here. We don't have a good track record with that.
So rather than gamble on the intelligence of the American public, why not give them a better candidate?
What's the benefit of sticking with Biden? How many people already willing to vote for Biden isn't voting D regardless of candidate?
You're right that everyone should vote Biden.
But that doesn't matter. The American public does the wrong thing almost constantly, have you been in public lately?
What you don't seem to be understanding is that I'm not arguing for Biden being the nominee. I'm arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:
Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won’t vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.
I'm not objecting to people asking for a better candidate. I'm concerned that those people will fuck over the rest of the country and not vote Democratic if they don't get one.
I’m arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:
To who?
Who are you arguing against?
No one that's here...
I'm arguing with you, because you're out here misplacing blame on Biden for things that are under the purview of Congress and declaring that the Democrats will lose even the down-ballot races if he's the nominee. If you're going to vote Democratic regardless who the nominee is, then please make that statement alongside everything else you're stating. Otherwise you sound like you're going to protest vote if Biden is the nominee.
I’m arguing with you
For something I never said...
This isnt the first you've done it either, I don't think it'll magically become productive. Have a nice life
Dems didn't control both the house and the senate soo... Thats why Dems haven't been able to pass as many things as they would like.
Yeah, seriously considering, so nothing is going to happen. Words mean nothing without action.
Yeah, would have loved to see action before now. Still, what specific steps would you rather see this moment?
At least he's talking about it and maybe giving people hope that things could settle the fuck down. Lot of people probably voting against Trump, but would help to have more reasons to vote for Biden
At least he’s talking about it
So noble to bring up things the country desperately needs and he has no intention of working towards
Shits too bad to keep wasting Dem administrations on neoliberals
What specific steps would you like to see Biden take right now?
Use the powers granted to him as president of the United States...
He can just fucking arrest Clarence for acts against the US government and throw his ass in Gitmo
What's the reason not to? You one of those people that think Republicans are holding back so if we fight back they're fight even harder?
They been fighting as hard as they can for decades. And Trump will use every power granted to him (and some that aren't) if he's president.
You don't fight fascism with both hands tied behind your back unless you're not worried about fascism winning...
What was that Biden quote about if he loses the election?
Democrats should quit waiting until they can't do shit to suggest doing it.
That's their whole strategy. If they suggest doing shit when they still had time to do anything, they might feel pressured by the populace to do something, and that would upset their owners.
Oh Captain my Captain!
Needs the Congress to make them amendments
And if they’re going to do that, they should add all federally elected or appointed people. If you hit the federal retirement age during your term, you’re ineligible to run again. For SCOTUS, if you hit it, you begin the process to step down while a replacement is vetted and approved.
In addition to its critical analysis of Nietzsche’s philosophy, The Aristocratic Rebel presents readers with a distinctive window into nineteenth century liberal thought, showing how Nietzsche held deep sympathies with liberal thinkers of his time and indeed forged much of his thought in line with many liberal ideals. Situating Nietzsche in the political context of his time helps readers to locate and bring Nietzsche to life in our present day when the debates between liberal and socialist conceptions of justice, equality and emancipation remain ever pertinent questions.
Some more context:
What made Nietzsche’s reactionary political views sympathetic to liberalism were their mutual disdain for socialist leveling and equality. This similarity led Nietzsche to endorse many of the same pro-imperial and anti-egalitarian sentiments that liberals of his time adopted. We must read Nietzsche’s political thought in the wake of the Napoleonic conquests of Germany for which the German liberal establishment agreed that the influence of the French ideals of egalitarianism and equality were foreign impositions on German culture, stripping it of its vitality
Thanks for the context.
What does that make cattle transformed into ?
Steak.
Fuck yeah, he has my vote. The Supreme Court needs some serious nerfs and better guardrails.
Amendment. I would be shocked if a constitutional amendment passes in the next 30 years.
This is like Bidens re election chance 0% chance this actually happens 🤣😭
Would have been good if he was working last 3.5 years too, now doing damage control is too little too late
The problem ofc being that congress fights him tooth and nail for anything he wants done, but yeah... all his fault.
Not all his fault, but he definitely shares much of the blame, largely due to a lack of leadership on the topic.
What the president can do in those situations is focus the discussion, he has the highest pulpit of any politician, he should've been using it to move the frame of discussion and shift party strategy to make court reform a stronger pillar of the party platform. When the president says something it gives other party members permission to hammer on an idea.
Instead he lingered on his dusty, worthless notions of bipartisanship and "reaching across the aisle" and wasted all his political capital defending a genocide.
He could have done what hes trying to do now three years ago. Why did he wait until there were LESS democrats in office before trying?
... Because the SC seemed to act sufficiently unbiased and ethically until now?
"Biden says more things he'll immediately abandon on day one to appeal to a left he's actively working to undermine with multiple bills in congress right now."
This would be amazing if he can do it. At least he's promising good changes vs trump promising judgment day on day one...
Didn't he literally say he would take vengeance on all his political opponents day one? Then the Supreme Court gave him absolute immunity?
Yes. He said both what I wrote and wanting revenge, saying he will be a dictator for one day, day one. This video has both clips, if you want to skip to 8:17 for the revenge and judgment day after that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNzzOwiebvM
It is weird that they dicked around for 4 years on this, though.
Still, vote blue, your vassals beg you (Australian here).
4 years of daily Republican sabotage of the US government. Democrats are not perfect. They are also not the problem at hand.
Undoing the amount of damage they caused takes time. Biden inherited a spiraling economy, hundreds of thousands of people sick and dying, and a coup attempt that nearly got a bunch of people killed.
Not to mention all the idiotic shit the prior president had done while in office, such as austerity cuts that fucked social programs, legal systems, and low and middle income Americans.
It will take 12-16 years of unified democrat rule to fix corruption, regulatory capture, anti-trust for monopolies, universal healthcare, infrastructure investments that don't get slashed by idiotic presidents, etc.
Four years of chemotherapy isn't nearly enough when we have policy tumors and R&D funding cut abscesses from fucking idiots like Regan, Bush, and Trump.
Hmmm, genuinely improving the lives of Americans vs fire and brimstone and a dictator. Tough choice for Americans in November /s
Get everyone you can to vote in November, seriously. Trump's faction is barely scraping by. We can do this.
Just pack the goddamn court. There's ONE conservative justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who came to power having received more votes than his opponent, and that's Clarence Thomas, the man whose loyalties can be bought with a luxury vacation and whose wife aided and abetted insurrectionist traitors.
The ENTIRE conservative wing of the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Every single one of them. And you know what? Thanks to the GOP, it only takes 50 votes to approve a supreme court justice. It used to be sixty, but they changed the rules so they could more conveniently destroy America.
Easier than a constitutional amendment, but it still requires 60 votes in the senate to expand the number of justices in the court.
There needs to be a true check to the complete corruption of the supreme court.
We need,
The Ultra Supreme Court XXL
I’m wishing he had packed the courts when he had the chance.
Yep, exactly. I remember seeing many warnings in 2021-22 saying that then was the right time to pack the courts. Establishment Dems twiddled their thumbs while insisting that everyone everywhere needs to follow proper decorum and procedure. And now look what happened with the string of terrible Supreme Court decisions.
The fact that the US has to 'pack the courts' to get anything through shows how broken the system is.
Not that any other country is better but still, you'd think judges should be impartial and resistant to influence, and yet you get Clarence offering up his chocolate starfish for a vacation in a warm climate
Plenty of countries are far 'better'.
Oh probably, but I didn't want a bunch of Yankees jumping down my throat, and I don't know enough about other countries' legal systems to comment
You're 100% correct.
Fuck procedure. Dems need to act instead of just talking about shit. I'm legit terrified for this next election.
And you think that wasn't the wanted outcome.
He never had the chance, Manchin was pretty outspoken about his opposition to it.
True, I was just dreaming for a minute.
no because that would actually have worked
The skeptic in me says democrats love not being in power cause they don’t have to be responsible for what actually happens.
And they get more donations
add ranked choice
Only if the ranking is applied at the state level AND the national level. I'm not going to throw away my vote or my delegate's vote.
Why not get rid of delegates altogether while we're at it?
Yes please. As someone who isn't in a swing state, I would like my vote to matter.
And a popular vote means citizens in other countries could vote (Puerto Rico).
Also, prisoners should get a vote.
I just want to point out that Puerto Rico is not a separate country, it is part of the United States. The people there are US Citizens just like those in the 50 States. However, as a territory they do not have the same representation in government or federal support as a full State.
A lot of people get this wrong. Including some Border Patrol officers. They don't exactly hire the most educated for the Frontline positions, that's pretty clear from the stupid clearly wrong or illegal shit CBP ends up doing.
Thank you. I meant to say other territories (hence citizens), since they don't get a vote. But yeah, a lot of people don't realize they are part of the U.S.
Bro, a quarter of the Borer Patrol *are" Puerto Ricans.
So PR is a colony
Isn't ranked choice like straight up banned in like 12 states or something? You'd have to flip each of those states first before even going down that road right?
Well, theoretically federal law would supercede state law. But current SCOTUS is kinda wack right now.
Doesn’t the constitution explicitly grant states the right to decide how they hold their elections?
The Constitution is so vague on the point, it doesn't even require that states hold elections. It just says that the legislature decides how the state's presidential electors are appointed. That didn't stop the Originalists on the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™ from ruling in the Colorado ballot case that, well, akshually, legislatures aren't allowed to decide how to run their state's elections.
Now, you'd think that a ruling that federal law supersedes state control of elections means that federal law supersedes state control of elections, but that principle may only apply to who appears on the ballot. It may only apply to whether their guy appears on the ballot. Don't pin down the Best Supreme Court Money Can Buy™, man! They need to know who's going to benefit from ranked-choice voting before they know what the Constitution actually says. Hell, the Constitution may actually contain a list of which states are allowed to have ranked-choice voting, and which are not. We just don't know yet!
Make every US citizen a Supreme Court justice when they turn 18. There’s nothing in the constitution that says you can’t do that. Put cases up to popular vote every year or two. Also, whatever law passed to do this would count as senate approval because who’s going to strike it down… the Supreme Court?
There’s nothing in the constitution that says dogs can't play basketball.
This meme is great but it drives me crazy. There are certainly multiple eligibility requirements to play on a school basketball team, including age and being a registered student, which would prevent a dog from qualifying.
Don't stomp on Air Bud's dreams.
There is that basketball court that's on top of the Supreme Court.....does that mean another Air Bud sequel but this time he's a justice?
This is hilarious. I'm sure someone with more bandwidth than me can point out a dozen reasons why this is bad, but fuck if it isn't funny and appealing.
Yeah but what we have now is clearly bad too.
We’ve already got a partisan court and the decisions affect us all anyway, so…
Hopefully he succeeds. The court is fucked
I can't imagine how he possibly will. R is happy just the way things are.
People need to flip House and Senate blue. Theres a better chance of that happening than Biden winning.
Even when Biden loses, it will be necessary to have a majority to keep Trump in check.
PACK THE FUCKING COURT! You're in that office to serve the people not the fucking system. Doesn't matter anyway republicans are going to destroy everything they can get their hands on.
Yeah, why would you try to actually solve a problem instead of just applying a band-aid that the next administration can rip of again (by incresing the size of the court again)?
Every solution that works within the system would be a band-aid. The entire system is band-aids. The government set up by a group of wealthy white men almost 250 years ago for a population 130 times smaller than it is now simply does not and cannot work in today's world.
If he doesn't do it, Trump will if he wins.
He can't do it with a Republican House and a Senate that requires 60 votes to do anything.
That's the real problem, but too many people here and elsewhere are unaware of the limitations on how the legislative process works. Anything like this is pretty much DOA and purely ceremonial. I'm happy for all of the positive things Biden has been able to get done in spite of such gridlock, but amendment level change in this country is just not at all possible right now.
Nope. And while the call for a Constitutional Convention to re-do the whole thing currently has more support (28 states out of 34 required), it's generally coming from red states and would require 3/4 of the states to approve it. So that's a non-starter too.
https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/article-v-convention/#
Well, I mean. if their rhetoric has hit a tipping point, maybe there wont be 60 for long.
And even if he could, there's literally zero reason to think he would. This is more empty campaign rhetoric like back in 2020.
That's the thing that kills me, he makes these promises that he KNOWS he can't get done, which leads to the whole "Well, Democrats never do anything!" argument.
What he NEEDS to say is "Here's what I want to do, but I need your help throwing out the bastards in the House and Senate blocking it! Here are their names, let's get them gone!"
Yep, this is the carrot that will never be given to us, standard DNC playbook.
No talkie talkie. Fucking do.
Explain how.
Why doesn't he just bypass congress and call it an official act?
He's a "soft" Democrat that cares about "optics" 🙄
But practically speaking there's no way for him to enforce it without threatening violence and there's no chance that would go over well even with other democrats
What a nice thought, too bad Biden didn’t do anything over two years ago when it would have actually mattered.
Not that it will get passed now, but if he did that 2 years ago, everyone would be saying that there isn’t any good indication these things are truly a huge issue. Now that it is out that they are taking bribes, working directly in conflicts of interests, and clearly doing things in contradiction to duty, there is a much stronger case.
Making a change with the fundamental design of the of the separation of powers will always be, nearly, impossible, and completely so without strong demonstration of why they need to be changed.
The Supreme Court has always been susceptible to corruption and bribery, which is how corporate power and influence has been expanded to the virtual oligarchy we have today. That said, the current court outed itself as biased and broken when they wrongly handed the 2000 election to W Bush. I don’t believe corrective actions at any point during the Biden presidency could have been legitimately questioned, and certainly not after the SC stripped women of the right to bodily autonomy over 2 years ago.
He could not have. Nor was he himself convinced of the need, and for good reason, until the SC's presidential immunity ruling and the more recent evidence of their corruption. I think Laurence Tribe is a good person to get context from, and unless I'm mistaken he has never, before now, called for SC reform despite having written entire books on it. IOW, this is all kind of new.
This might be of interest: How the US supreme court shredded the constitution and what can be done to repair it
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema already said they weren't going to support that, so what do you suggest the President do without a Senate majority?
It's crazy how often I see people doing this; they're ardently against Trump's efforts to turn the presidency into a dictatorship, while at the same time complaining that Biden didn't do x y, or z when those aren't things that fall under his purview.
What do they want?? Dictatorship is ok if it's the neo-liberal I like?
Instead of trodding out the tired old excuses of Sinema and Manchin time and again for doing absolutely nothing, I suggest that instead Biden actually tries something. He could demand they be removed from the party. He could go to their home states in their home districts and loudly campaign for them to come around, all the while screaming from the rooftops how badly their constituents are being screwed by their reprehensible policies and refusal to cooperate. Force them to comply, or ensure their removal from office.
But no, Biden is not this kind of leader. Instead he thinks of them as friends, and would never seek to challenge their positions for a meaningful political agenda. Perhaps this lack of initiative to deliver for the people is why Biden is so wildly unpopular, and hurtling towards a landslide defeat to the criminal traitor Trump in November. Trump may be a totally fake populist, but at least his messaging resonates with the pain and suffering felt at this time by the American people. Of course Trump has no agenda other than self enrichment, but he at least says things that people want to hear. DC insiders such as Biden, Manchin, and Sinema are totally oblivious to that reality.
So, in effect: "idk do SOMETHING"? Or say the magic words that make his opponents agree with him?
There's an absurd idealism in some circles that saying the right words at the bully pulpit will let you achieve your goals and convince the people standing in your way to acquiesce. It does not work that way.
he has absolute immunity to whatever courtesy of the supreme court.
Biden doesn't. Trump does. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. The court will rule that nothing Biden does is an official act, while Trump could literally murder random people on 34th st, and it would be an official act.
Sure it does, look at how Trump made everyone bend the knee for 4 years. I’d like to see Biden try is all.
I think I see what you're saying actually. Because yeah, that did work for Trump. But I think this is a fundamental difference between left and right (or center left and right if you prefer). The right values loyalty above even right wing ideology. The left doesn't have that same kind of hero worship or allegiance.
Those two should've been kicked out of the party a long time ago. Both are up for reelection this year and are not running as a democrat.
What would that have solved exactly? Those seats wouldn't have been won by anyone further left anyway. The problem is that North Dakota and California get the same number of Senators, despite the former having literally 50x more people.
Which is why keeping the filibuster has generally been in the best interest of the left, even if it's not ideal right now. I think the Democrats are absolutely fooling themselves if they think the R's will respect the filibuster if it's in their way at this point though.
You don't have to replace them next election with a far left candidate, just one that won't betray the party like those two shit-heads. You run the risk of losing the seat to the GOP but it was half GOP anyways and its worth it to maintain party discipline. Kick two senators out and no other senator is going to risk their career disobeying the party.
Also what this utter nonesense about maintaining the filibuster? It can be removed with a simple majority and the GOP does so whenever they have that majority. Its been that way for decades. Saying "It'd be nice if the GOP kept the filibuster when they were in power so we will keep it when we're in power." is absolute bullshit. Democrats aren't naiive idealists, they just want excuses to not do what their voters want.
Oh then it's okay he didn't even try anything until he realized he was so unpopular people are asking him to step down.
That's not what I said bro.
People need to be upset at Biden not doing things he has the ability to do, not things he doesn't. Fixing SCOTUS isn't going to happen without either a major legislative change or now (thanks to SCOTUS) Biden doing some major unsavory things he has absolute immunity for.
On that last part, you're not understanding the full awfulness of the ruling. The court ruled that the court decides what is and is not an official act. Biden has no immunity because this supreme court will 100% rule that anything Biden does is not an "official act".
Yep, Biden is under the delusion that representatives vote on policies based on what their constituents want.
What would you have recommend he do?
Push for Supreme Court ethics reform, term limits and add amendment to make even the president not above the law.
Like he's doing
Yeah, but because he only did so after it became obvious that it was a problem because conservatives stacked the court, basically both sides are the same!
Not an American, but increasing SC members would seem like a good thing to do. The more people on it, the harder it is to stack.
Who cares? Stack it until its a bigger joke than it already is. Its a wildly undemocratic institution.
The number of SCOTUS justices is set by law. The President can't* appoint more without Congress passing a law adding more.
*Of course, that was before they ruled that Presidents are totally immune from any prosecution, so who the fuck knows now.
This is false, there is no law stipulating the number of justices. There have been as few as 6 before, and we could have easily increased that to 23 during the first 2 years of Biden’s presidency if Dems were interested in preserving justice and willing to remove the filibuster.
I’m not sure why you believe this is false? From https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx : “Who decides how many Justices are on the Court?: The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.”
Oh I see, I think it was a misunderstanding. I just meant there’s no law stipulating a particular number. Perhaps the OP could have said it better that it’s “set by Congress,” and they did correctly point out Congress can change it further.
There IS a law stipulating the number of justices. The number is not set by the constitution, which I think is where you got the idea. Changing the law that sets the number would require an act of Congress, which means a 2/3rds majority in the Senate because of the filibuster rule. 50% could overturn the filibuster rule and then stack the court, but 2 right leaning Democrats from Republican states refuse to overturn the filibuster rule, so it's just not possible unless more progressives are in the Senate.
Getting a more progressive Senate is hard because it's not proportional representation. North Dakota with a population under 1 million gets the same number of Senators as California with 40 million. Rural voters are wildly over-represented in the Senate.
There's no way there was enough public support for that notion right after the overturning of Roe v Wade. Even now it's critical enough to first release he would consider it to test the waters.
it's almost as if there were barely 50 senators in the senate and it takes 60 to pass anything.
Stack the fucking court Joe. I don't care if there are 500 Supreme Court Justices.
Requires an act of congress and elimination of the filibuster. Not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. Need more blue senators, which is hard because California gets the same number of Senators as North Dakota, which has the same population as a small apartment complex in LA.
So we need record turnout for that. Vote.
Just saying, he could officially eliminate a few justices in the short term.
Kicks in the door, guns blazing ... official presidential business 😎
They had the house, the senate and the white house before the mid terms and they squandered it
Are you talking about the period in which Sinema and Manchin actively sabotaged the agenda of their own party?
Vote and volunteer to help others get to the booths if they can't on their own. We know they want to do everything they can to make voting harder for the blue. Getting the blue to stay home is their only chance of winning. If everyone votes, there is no longer a republican party. (or those that are around won't matter, they won't be able to strip rights from the American people)
Pack it, but better yet is to completely restructure it. The Constitution is extremely vague about what SCOTUS is. Just that it exists, its the highest court in the land, and Congress defines it.
He needs to push hard and fast.
Incrementalists don't do that.
You mean conservatives, but I agree. Our less-fascist conservative party doesn't like to even attempt too much progress; it would upset their owners.
Incrementalists believe in doing as little as possible and would do nothing if they thought they could get away with it. Conservatives believe in fascism and will implement it as quickly as we let them. Incrementalists believe in letting them.
The most amazing ideas always come when the election draws close. But he can't implement any of them because there is no time.
Good thing Biden already fulfilled his previous election promises. Student loans are a thing of the past.
He rescheduled the fuck out of weed too right….riiiight?
Whoah whoah whoah. He said "push for", not implement. He'll do his best!
Just let me get that barn door for you Democrats.
This needs to happen.
38 states to agree on that constitutional amendment ?
Which states ?
Bush full of birds, but our hands are still empty...
Biden had four fucking years to do something, half of that time Dems controlled both House and Senate.
But he doesn't start talking about it till right before the election as a promise for something he'll "look into" in January
Dems controlled the Senate with the slimmest majority possible. One fucker that owns a coal company was able to tank all meaningful climate bills and there was nothing Biden or anyone else could do about it. You can forget about any progressive policies in that environment, lol. Biden did well with the tools he was given.
And four years ago Biden wouldnt shut up about how only he could work with a Republican Senate.
Long before we dreamed if 50 seats.
As soon as that was on the table, it switched to 50 accomplishes everything. And almost immediately after we got that. Biden said it wasn't enough
Three big goalpost moves in like 6 months, that shit is noticable to voters and some can remember the last election, and not take Biden on his word again.
You’re supposed to be angry at the people preventing progress, not the people trying to create progress.
Promising progress and intentionally not fulfilling the promise is, indeed, preventing progress. Of course the R's are awful. The D's are also shitty and I hold them to a higher standard.
You’re misplacing the blame, friend
Tag his username, he's usually like this
This is like saying we can't criticize the police because criminals are worse...
I love how people blame Biden for shit the racist rapist with 34 felonies did. The amount of mental gymnastics that requires is amazing. Unless you're not a real person and at this point, I kinda hope you're not.
Bruh....
How is it you read something like:
And your take away
Seriously, what steps of logic did you get to thinking I'm a trump supporter?
It's 2024, you can't imagine someone doesn't like Biden but hates trump?
What in the hell are you talking about? Did you respond to the wrong person because you're quoting shit that wasn't in what I replied to. You broken?
I mean, I thought the "like" was a clear signal I was paraphrasing...
But overestimating people is a flaw I openly admit
Biden has been successful at getting bipartisan legislation passed over the last few years. That doesn't mean that everything can be done. It horse shit that you think that because he wasn't able to convince any Republicans and lost a turn coat and coal barron that it's his fault, or that he mislead with his "working across the aisle" comments.
To address one of your other comments, this shit is the reason people might believe your a Trump supporter. The same shit rhetoric day in and day out. There's being critical and there's being beneficial to Trump. You frequently sit on the Trump benefits side of comments.
Not sure why you're getting negative votes. You're right. But Dems still haven't learned that the days of working across party lines is a dream from a bygone era.
Old man dreams.
You can't even get moderates to understand if the best we can do is a tie, it's harder to even manage that.
Anyone that can look at the last 16 years of the party and say with a straight face we're making the right moves isn't worth listening to.
There is absolutely zero benefit to running Hillary/Biden types rather than an Obama type
It's very disingenuous to say the Democratic party controlled the Senate while having the House majority. The Senate was 48 Democratic, 2 Independents who caucused with the Democratic Senators, and 50 Republicans with the VP casting tie-breakong votes. Very little legislation could be passed because of the filibuster, which needed 51 votes to reform and both Machines and Lineman stating they absolutely would not go along with that. The Senate could approve most nominees, and pass reconciliation (ie 3 types of budget-related bills) once a year. They had no path the expand the court or codify Roe or anything like that with the "majority" they had. We need either 51 Senators who will amend the filibuster (or get rid of it) or 61 Senators to overcome the filibuster to really have the ability to get anything substantial done.
Then why was Biden saying he could work with a Republican controlled Senate 4 years ago?
Why say that the Georgia runoffs would get the whole platform?
What number do we need for any current campaign promises to come true? And if the deciding factor is House and Senate, shouldn't we do ch Biden for a candidate that would help down allot races?
Probably because he did have a history of bipartisan work as a Senator.
In 2020? We didn't know yet that Sinema would do a 180 after being elected or that Manchin would be such a dick.
I already addressed that.
Anybody who supports the Democratic platform relative to the Republican platform and says they won't vote if Biden is on the ticket is, quite simply, failing our society most egregiously. Protest voting does nothing but lose.
Historically, a contested convention or not running the incumbent is a losing proposition. But I don't care who the Democratic party nominates in this election, I will vote for them up and down the ballot. The presidential nominees are going to be shitty until we can collectively get our heads out of our asses and turn up it overwhelming numbers in the primaries to get progressives in state legislatures to overhaul our election process. It will take a constitutional amendment to unshitify the presidential election.
Oh ok...
So despite Biden spending 8 years in Obama's White House and getting a literal front row seat...
Biden was just too stupid to realize shit changed?
Or you think he knew and intentionally lied about it in that primary so he'd be the candidate even tho he knew the only reason to go with him was bullshit?
Like, you get that's where your logic leads right?
Biden is either:
Neither of those options makes people energized to vote for him again, and this election is too important to risk Joe.
My dude, Biden has had more bipartisan success than Obama did. So I really don't think you have a winning point here.
No, but I get that it's where you insist on taking it.
You have it wrong, this election is too important to risk not voting Democratic regardless if it is Joe. O will vote blue regardless. Will you?
There are 10s of millions of voters Biden needs to convince, and every indication is he's not going to be able to convince enough, especially not the tens of thousands up for grabs in battleground states.
It's easier to switch out Biden while there's still time than to convince all those people.
You're worried about forcing everyone into making a smart decision. We're talking about the American public here. We don't have a good track record with that.
So rather than gamble on the intelligence of the American public, why not give them a better candidate?
What's the benefit of sticking with Biden? How many people already willing to vote for Biden isn't voting D regardless of candidate?
You're right that everyone should vote Biden.
But that doesn't matter. The American public does the wrong thing almost constantly, have you been in public lately?
What you don't seem to be understanding is that I'm not arguing for Biden being the nominee. I'm arguing against not voting Democratic in the event the Biden is the nominee:
I'm not objecting to people asking for a better candidate. I'm concerned that those people will fuck over the rest of the country and not vote Democratic if they don't get one.
To who?
Who are you arguing against?
No one that's here...
I'm arguing with you, because you're out here misplacing blame on Biden for things that are under the purview of Congress and declaring that the Democrats will lose even the down-ballot races if he's the nominee. If you're going to vote Democratic regardless who the nominee is, then please make that statement alongside everything else you're stating. Otherwise you sound like you're going to protest vote if Biden is the nominee.
For something I never said...
This isnt the first you've done it either, I don't think it'll magically become productive. Have a nice life
Dems didn't control both the house and the senate soo... Thats why Dems haven't been able to pass as many things as they would like.
Yeah, seriously considering, so nothing is going to happen. Words mean nothing without action.
Yeah, would have loved to see action before now. Still, what specific steps would you rather see this moment?
At least he's talking about it and maybe giving people hope that things could settle the fuck down. Lot of people probably voting against Trump, but would help to have more reasons to vote for Biden
So noble to bring up things the country desperately needs and he has no intention of working towards
Shits too bad to keep wasting Dem administrations on neoliberals
What specific steps would you like to see Biden take right now?
Use the powers granted to him as president of the United States...
He can just fucking arrest Clarence for acts against the US government and throw his ass in Gitmo
What's the reason not to? You one of those people that think Republicans are holding back so if we fight back they're fight even harder?
They been fighting as hard as they can for decades. And Trump will use every power granted to him (and some that aren't) if he's president.
You don't fight fascism with both hands tied behind your back unless you're not worried about fascism winning...
What was that Biden quote about if he loses the election?
Democrats should quit waiting until they can't do shit to suggest doing it.
That's their whole strategy. If they suggest doing shit when they still had time to do anything, they might feel pressured by the populace to do something, and that would upset their owners.
Oh Captain my Captain!
Needs the Congress to make them amendments
And if they’re going to do that, they should add all federally elected or appointed people. If you hit the federal retirement age during your term, you’re ineligible to run again. For SCOTUS, if you hit it, you begin the process to step down while a replacement is vetted and approved.
If he doesnʼt die from COVID.
-Nietzsche
Incomplete and out of context sentiment, recommended reading here: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/nietzsche-in-his-time-the-struggle-against-socratism-and-socialism/
Some more context:
Thanks for the context.
What does that make cattle transformed into ?
Steak.
Fuck yeah, he has my vote. The Supreme Court needs some serious nerfs and better guardrails.
Amendment. I would be shocked if a constitutional amendment passes in the next 30 years.
This is like Bidens re election chance 0% chance this actually happens 🤣😭
Would have been good if he was working last 3.5 years too, now doing damage control is too little too late
The problem ofc being that congress fights him tooth and nail for anything he wants done, but yeah... all his fault.
Not all his fault, but he definitely shares much of the blame, largely due to a lack of leadership on the topic.
What the president can do in those situations is focus the discussion, he has the highest pulpit of any politician, he should've been using it to move the frame of discussion and shift party strategy to make court reform a stronger pillar of the party platform. When the president says something it gives other party members permission to hammer on an idea.
Instead he lingered on his dusty, worthless notions of bipartisanship and "reaching across the aisle" and wasted all his political capital defending a genocide.
He could have done what hes trying to do now three years ago. Why did he wait until there were LESS democrats in office before trying?
... Because the SC seemed to act sufficiently unbiased and ethically until now?
"Biden says more things he'll immediately abandon on day one to appeal to a left he's actively working to undermine with multiple bills in congress right now."
Demonstrably false.
Please demonstrate. He still owes me $600.
Wrong
Here ya go: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true
Edit: I know, you'll bitch and moan and complain but the facts remain facts