Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AlterNet)   Could the Barrett vote be delayed by impeaching Barr?   (alternet.org) divider line
    More: Giggity  
•       •       •

3522 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 9:57 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



171 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-21 8:19:54 AM  
media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 8:21:18 AM  

SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]


user name...
 
2020-10-21 8:21:57 AM  
He's just not worth it, you see. Plus he's been in federal politics for decades, he's got tenure so Pelosi can't take any action against him at all.
 
2020-10-21 8:26:27 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size



/Nothin gonna happen
// :(
 
2020-10-21 8:29:04 AM  
Imma gonna go with, "No".
 
2020-10-21 8:37:22 AM  
There's no way McConnell's going to take his beady little eyes off the ball now.  Approving Supreme Court justices for the "right" President is all he wants.

Stonewalling every possible Democratic advance and acting as a living roadblock for legislation he doesn't like is just a bonus.
 
2020-10-21 8:42:06 AM  
impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.
 
2020-10-21 8:43:49 AM  

koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.


He doesn't have a choice.
 
2020-10-21 9:30:28 AM  

vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...


I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.
 
2020-10-21 9:57:56 AM  
For the life of me I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet.
 
2020-10-21 9:58:36 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.


And he'd have to be on defense the whole time.  After all...Barr's the only thing standing between McConnell and a life sentence.
 
2020-10-21 9:59:32 AM  

A Cave Geek: Barr's the only thing standing between McConnell and a life sentence.


thefilmstage.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 9:59:42 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.


Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.
 
2020-10-21 10:00:39 AM  
It would potentially work.. but I don't see it happening
 
2020-10-21 10:00:53 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...
 
2020-10-21 10:02:31 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


I sold mine for drug money in college.
 
2020-10-21 10:02:59 AM  
Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?
 
2020-10-21 10:04:15 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?


Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.
 
2020-10-21 10:04:48 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


Sadly I have also parted from my beloved '73 Nova as well.
 
2020-10-21 10:05:18 AM  
Impeach that ugly fark.  He deserves it.
 
2020-10-21 10:05:23 AM  

incendi: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.


media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:05:25 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


Fark user imageView Full Size

Can relate.
 
2020-10-21 10:05:33 AM  
Why did they keep referring to it as a "charismatic group"?  You know who else was a "charismatic" group?....
 
2020-10-21 10:05:37 AM  
That'd be pretty damn awesome so it's obviously never going to happen with the jello-spines running things.
 
2020-10-21 10:06:02 AM  
Let's try it and find out. What do we have to lose?
 
2020-10-21 10:06:46 AM  
It better be!

Bill Barr was very mean to Trump by not arresting all of Fark and declaring it Obamagate, Trump is angry at Barr and wants him gone. Other people are angry at Bill Barr for subverting the rule of law and being a gangster anarchist instead of an Attorney General.

Bill Barr and Amy Barrett are both delightful to the Kremlin, they gotta go.

Moscow Mitch isn't helping Trump's reelection by being a hypocrite and throttling stimulus.
 
2020-10-21 10:06:53 AM  
Pelosi and the Democrats might as well do that and then pull out more impeachment charges for Trump and maybe even beer bro. What downside is there? Just keep pushing impeachments out till Dec. McConnell has manipulated his power for over a decade now to pack the courts. Fark him and all the GOP. Use every possible power you have to block his corruption.
 
2020-10-21 10:06:58 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


People should be celebrated for letting go of old ideas and being willing to change.  Humans tend to reject ideas that challenge their world view.  Over coming that is not easy.
 
2020-10-21 10:07:09 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative:
I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


I'm allergic to spice. Long story.
 
2020-10-21 10:07:23 AM  
Dude, if a pandemic that killed nearly 1/4 million people, infected 8 million plus, and tanked the economy couldn't shave a microsecond off of the GOP senators' push to confirm this individual whose legal opinions are a radical departure from most Americans, do you honestly think that impeaching Barr during the week of her confirmation will make the slightest bit of difference?
 
2020-10-21 10:07:35 AM  

Spice Must Flow: alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative:
I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...

I'm allergic to spice. Long story.


You sound white.
 
2020-10-21 10:07:37 AM  

incendi: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.


Yeah, The Rules also said that Lindsay Graham couldn't hold a vote to pass Barrett's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee without at least two minority members present - wanna guess how long those rules held Graham up?
 
2020-10-21 10:07:45 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.


Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.
 
2020-10-21 10:07:54 AM  

Chariset: There's no way McConnell's going to take his beady little eyes off the ball now.  Approving Supreme Court justices for the "right" President is all he wants.

Stonewalling every possible Democratic advance and acting as a living roadblock for legislation he doesn't like is just a bonus.


Thread over. The Treason Turtle is going to fill RGB's seat. Book it. Done.

He will fill that seat even though it will likely cost him control of the Senate.

He will fill that seat even though there is a very small chance it will cost him the election.

Repeat after me. The Treason Turtle is going to fill RGB's seat.

The real question is: What is President Biden going to do about it?
 
2020-10-21 10:08:01 AM  
Guys, I appreciate the creative brainstorming, but short of 3 Republicans dropping dead on the spot, nothing is stopping Barrett's confirmation.
 
2020-10-21 10:08:45 AM  

sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.


That's not how it works.
 
2020-10-21 10:08:54 AM  

Apocalyptic Inferno: Guys, I appreciate the creative brainstorming, but short of 3 Republicans dropping dead on the spot, nothing is stopping Barrett's confirmation.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:09:05 AM  
Pretend I posted my reply one thread down.  (._.)
 
2020-10-21 10:10:04 AM  

Dr Dreidel: incendi: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.

Yeah, The Rules also said that Lindsay Graham couldn't hold a vote to pass Barrett's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee without at least two minority members present - wanna guess how long those rules held Graham up?


I wonder if that was that before or after DiFi gave him a big ol' hug and treated him like a long lost best friend?
 
2020-10-21 10:10:51 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.


Optics, people!
Democrats had to look like they were helping! They had to look like they were being bipartisan! That's the important thing, not whether some <expletive> in a cage got any actual help!
 
2020-10-21 10:10:56 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.


Why won't those lousy democrats stop the republicans!  Oh wait, they can't.  The GOP controls the judiciary, the senate and the White House.  They can hold hearings after hearings.  But it won't get anything done.  The public at large doesn't care.  So shame on us as a country.  But showing everyone how weakness of the democrats' position won't help anything.

But keep trying to fracture the democrats, I'm sure Trump, McConnell  and Putin would thank you.
 
2020-10-21 10:11:17 AM  

gunga galunga: Chariset: There's no way McConnell's going to take his beady little eyes off the ball now.  Approving Supreme Court justices for the "right" President is all he wants.

Stonewalling every possible Democratic advance and acting as a living roadblock for legislation he doesn't like is just a bonus.

Thread over. The Treason Turtle is going to fill RGB's seat. Book it. Done.

He will fill that seat even though it will likely cost him control of the Senate.

He will fill that seat even though there is a very small chance it will cost him the election.

Repeat after me. The Treason Turtle is going to fill RGB's seat.

The real question is: What is President Biden going to do about it?


Ask co-president McConnell (or whoever the most powerful Senate Republican is by then)  to pretty, pretty, pretty please consider a few suggestions their donors have.
 
2020-10-21 10:11:31 AM  
I mean he should for acting like the personal attorney for the President.

I will say I hope it he wakes up every morning knowing he's bent all norms of his position and torpedoed pretty much any chance of whatever higher political aspirations he has in order to be a sycophant to a guy who derides him publicly for not fully being a lap dog and locking up his political enemies for whatever crimes he thinks they did.

I hope Barr will name each one of his ulcers and failed dreams after a member of the Trump family.
 
2020-10-21 10:12:14 AM  
Barrett's confirmation is a foregone conclusion.
Impeaching Barr
1) would  be a waste of time.  The Senate doesn't have the votes.
2) would be seen as politically motivated at this point in the election
3) might unify Republican voters at the polls
4) would only delay confirmation by a week. Maybe.

ACB is going to be confirmed. The Supreme Court is lost for now.  Get through the election, and hopefully the Democrats will control the White House and Congress. Then we'll see what they have in store for the Judicial Branch.
 
2020-10-21 10:12:17 AM  

Boo_Guy: Dr Dreidel: incendi: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.

Yeah, The Rules also said that Lindsay Graham couldn't hold a vote to pass Barrett's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee without at least two minority members present - wanna guess how long those rules held Graham up?

I wonder if that was that before or after DiFi gave him a big ol' hug and treated him like a long lost best friend?


Before - DiFI hugged him after the vote to pass her nomination out of Committee.

// President Biden wouldn't need to impeach Barrett - just point out that her nomination was not in order per the Senate's own rules
// although the fact that 51 Senators voted to confirm after the committee hearing (which isn't Constitutionally mandated) would probably prevent any such challenge
 
2020-10-21 10:13:46 AM  
If your primary goal is to throw a wrench into the Senate, go for the throat. Impeach McConnell.
 
2020-10-21 10:13:49 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


its one of the few things i kept in my divorce.
 
2020-10-21 10:14:20 AM  

webron: AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.

Why won't those lousy democrats stop the republicans!  Oh wait, they can't.  The GOP controls the judiciary, the senate and the White House.  They can hold hearings after hearings.  But it won't get anything done.  The public at large doesn't care.  So shame on us as a country.  But showing everyone how weakness of the democrats' position won't help anything.

But keep trying to fracture the democrats, I'm sure Trump, McConnell  and Putin would thank you.


You don't get to tell me I'm trying to fracture the Democrats while also telling me the Democrats were right to vote to fund concentration camps and are right to have done nothing about any of it for the last year. The Democrats are obviously united in their support for the camps and the human rights violations occurring in them, and they have your full support, too.

And since I'm not on board with those things, I'm not a Democrat.
 
2020-10-21 10:14:48 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: A Cave Geek: Barr's the only thing standing between McConnell and a life sentence.

[thefilmstage.com image 759x500]


Had to try...lol
 
2020-10-21 10:15:55 AM  
Could the Barrett vote be delayed by me having marathon sex with lingerie models on the Senate floor through the end of the session?
 
2020-10-21 10:16:25 AM  

A Cave Geek: AdmirableSnackbar: A Cave Geek: Barr's the only thing standing between McConnell and a life sentence.

[thefilmstage.com image 759x500]

Had to try...lol


The scary thing is that there are people who believe it.
 
2020-10-21 10:16:45 AM  
*screams in Hillary just wasn't inspiring*
 
2020-10-21 10:17:02 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?


What would you like the Democrats to have done? Do you think that if Biden wins that he won't do anything?

Maybe you're just a troll. Or maybe you're Fark Independent (tm).
 
2020-10-21 10:17:16 AM  

webron: AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.

Why won't those lousy democrats stop the republicans!  Oh wait, they can't.  The GOP controls the judiciary, the senate and the White House.  They can hold hearings after hearings.  But it won't get anything done.  The public at large doesn't care.  So shame on us as a country.  But showing everyone how weakness of the democrats' position won't help anything.

But keep trying to fracture the democrats, I'm sure Trump, McConnell  and Putin would thank you.


Holding hearings after hearings would keep Republicans off the campaign trail...
 
2020-10-21 10:17:47 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: He's just not worth it, you see. Plus he's been in federal politics for decades, he's got tenure so Pelosi can't take any action against him at all.


But you are a big meanie head for pointing that out
 
2020-10-21 10:18:48 AM  
Do it. Don't talk about it, do it NOW.
 
2020-10-21 10:19:32 AM  
Snacked in three, with Bluejeans and Eyeball kickers. Thread is now officially worthless.
 
2020-10-21 10:20:09 AM  

bluenovaman: alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...

Sadly I have also parted from my beloved '73 Nova as well.


I never went to Vacation Bible School
 
2020-10-21 10:20:23 AM  
I feel like this could backfire on the voting going on now. And Senate will still have 2 months after the election. Probably better not to mess with it.

Now if we can get a blue wave it'll be time to start impeaching Trump toadies, and packing the courts. It has to be done.
 
2020-10-21 10:20:49 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


Is this where we childishly compare account ages...because a username like yours is almost reprehensible today...
 
2020-10-21 10:21:37 AM  

king of vegas: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

What would you like the Democrats to have done? Do you think that if Biden wins that he won't do anything?

Maybe you're just a troll. Or maybe you're Fark Independent (tm).


The answer, as ever, is to not fund farking concentration camps. Full stop.
You're Vichy frenching fascist boot leather if you suggest there's any other alternative.

And no, Biden has made no indication that he's going to do anything about the camps besides noncommital poltician speak. He could simply run on "CLOSE THE CAMPS", but Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan that they wouldn't eviscerate into noncommital politican speak.
 
2020-10-21 10:21:45 AM  
A relative's health has been going down recently....

Can't help but think they have the right idea.
 
2020-10-21 10:22:08 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.



Nothing in the government is not how it works anymore. That's the problem. None of the "rules" were actually rules with consequences. So everyone can just do whatever they want and there are literally zero consequences.
 
2020-10-21 10:22:14 AM  
Given that the Senate itself decides if and when anything goes to the floor and in what order, I'd say no. And I doubt the House could act fast enough anyways.
 
2020-10-21 10:22:23 AM  
There's a far shorter list of people in the administration or appointed by Trump who shouldn't be impeached.
 
2020-10-21 10:22:29 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.


Sure it does.
 
2020-10-21 10:22:52 AM  
why would they do that when polls now show even *democrats* have a far more favorable opinion of ACB after those disastrous hearings
 
2020-10-21 10:24:01 AM  

Tarl3k: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Is this where we childishly compare account ages...because a username like yours is almost reprehensible today...


My original account, sinanju, is from 2005 and has 33 greens on it. I switched when I lost a brother to a glioblastoma... hence the new name.
 
2020-10-21 10:24:02 AM  

JerkStore: AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.


Nothing in the government is not how it works anymore. That's the problem. None of the "rules" were actually rules with consequences. So everyone can just do whatever they want and there are literally zero consequences.


Except in impeachment hearings Mitch doesn't control the schedule or the Senate. John Roberts does.

Seriously, we just did this 8 decades months ago. Mitch doesn't get to reschedule or else he would have done it then, too.
 
2020-10-21 10:24:06 AM  

gopher321: Imma gonna go with, "No".


Agreed. Don't waste the time and give those losers another talking point. Focus on winning, and winning enough seats to add 6 more justices after the election. Then Barr can be tossed under the bus ignominiously, and an investigation can be done. Remember that when Rethuglicans complain about court stacking, point to Amy and remind them: "POWER IS THE ONLY LAW!"
 
2020-10-21 10:24:54 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open


Please.  Go spread disenchantment with among the democratic base among another, more friendly website, like Stormfront or TheDonald.com
 
2020-10-21 10:24:59 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.


He can change the Senate's rules at the drop of a hat, and in any way he likes.

Changing the Standing Rules should require a 3/5 majority, which presently only applies to limiting debate. Otherwise, someone like Mitch -- who controls a majority of the Senate absolutely and doesn't have to worry about any the GOP senators leaving the flock -- can do absolutely anything.
 
2020-10-21 10:25:50 AM  

inglixthemad: gopher321: Imma gonna go with, "No".

Agreed. Don't waste the time and give those losers another talking point. Focus on winning, and winning enough seats to add 6 more justices after the election. Then Barr can be tossed under the bus ignominiously, and an investigation can be done. Remember that when Rethuglicans complain about court stacking, point to Amy and remind them: "POWER IS THE ONLY LAW!"


And then start working on a senate majority large enough to impeach the justices D2S put there.
 
2020-10-21 10:26:22 AM  

Vacation Bible School: Vacation Bible School


3 words that should at all times be held mutually exclusive.
 
2020-10-21 10:26:54 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.


It is now.  McConnell will ignore any law, any rule, any precedent to confirm Barrett.  Who's going to stop him?  "Laws" don't matter when it takes months to argue about and the person breaking them can just go ahead and do what they want and let the chips fall.
 
2020-10-21 10:28:14 AM  
Technically, yes... for at least five minutes delay, and maybe even a week.

However, the House Judiciary Committee hasn't even started to draft a bill of Impeachment, which presents a obstacle that is practically insurmountable.

Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:28:48 AM  
There are 2 reasons they should absolutely do this:

1. Barr should be impeached because he has proven over and over again that he needs to be impeached.
2. It would delay Barrett's confirmation.

Considering that the majority of the country wants both of these things to happen, I really cannot imagine why the FARK they won't do it.

I mean c'mon, man...  The GOP is planning on subverting the will of the majority.  And they are going to do everything in their power to do just that.  So why they FARK won't the Democrats do something to block it?!

This IS the time.  The election is basically well underway.  They can't be concerned about this being a political move that might affect it.

Goddammit, Democrats! DO IT!!  Farking DO IT!!
 
2020-10-21 10:29:33 AM  
Can Pelosi just whip enough votes to impeach members of the Senate? That would be sure to slow down the process.  Half the Senate can be brought up on charges of insider trading.
 
2020-10-21 10:31:25 AM  
Could?
Should?
Yes.
Will?
Aye, there's the rub.
The GOP are lawless and Mitch DGAF.
 
2020-10-21 10:33:51 AM  

Mister Buttons: Why did they keep referring to it as a "charismatic group"?  You know who else was a "charismatic" group?....


The Monkees. Referenced next to you.
 
2020-10-21 10:33:53 AM  

sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.

Sure it does.


The Senate makes its own rules. It does so by majority vote and can change them by majority vote.

And as it stands now and indeed for your entire life, the leadership decides what goes to the floor and when unless some rule forces their hand. And all those exceptions will require Republican votes. The Republicans don't have to put anything on the floor that they don't want to. Just ask Merrick Garland.
 
2020-10-21 10:33:57 AM  

redonkulon: Pelosi and the Democrats might as well do that and then pull out more impeachment charges for Trump and maybe even beer bro. What downside is there? Just keep pushing impeachments out till Dec. McConnell has manipulated his power for over a decade now to pack the courts. Fark him and all the GOP. Use every possible power you have to block his corruption.


I mean, hell, not like they have anything better to do. They did their homework back in May to pass a stimulus bill that is left rotting in Moscow Turtle's "graveyard".  Best they can do is write more bills that sit there rotting until we get some new Senators that actually know how to pass legislation.

May as well impeach the farkers, at least then they're doing something.
 
2020-10-21 10:35:46 AM  

durbnpoisn: There are 2 reasons they should absolutely do this:

1. Barr should be impeached because he has proven over and over again that he needs to be impeached.
2. It would delay Barrett's confirmation.

Considering that the majority of the country wants both of these things to happen, I really cannot imagine why the FARK they won't do it.

I mean c'mon, man...  The GOP is planning on subverting the will of the majority.  And they are going to do everything in their power to do just that.  So why they FARK won't the Democrats do something to block it?!

This IS the time.  The election is basically well underway.  They can't be concerned about this being a political move that might affect it.

Goddammit, Democrats! DO IT!!  Farking DO IT!!


I think seeing her get confirmed will be the best selling point to get the apathetic and third-party voters to see the consequences and your for Biden.

Hopefully we can expand the SCOTUS to 15 or something if we have a blue wave.
 
2020-10-21 10:36:12 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.

Sure it does.

The Senate makes its own rules. It does so by majority vote and can change them by majority vote.

And as it stands now and indeed for your entire life, the leadership decides what goes to the floor and when unless some rule forces their hand. And all those exceptions will require Republican votes. The Republicans don't have to put anything on the floor that they don't want to. Just ask Merrick Garland.


the article specifically says making them change the rules to go through with the vote anyway would be a good thing too
 
2020-10-21 10:37:27 AM  
Progressives have a clever plan
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:38:25 AM  
I think it's a fantastic idea. Which means Pelosi and the House won't do it. It means playing real hardball and gritting your teeth and getting LBJ cutthroat mean. It's exactly what the Senate deserves, but Pelosi is afraid it will cost them the elections. It won't but she'll be gambling that Democrats take the Senate and eliminate the filibuster, then they can pass laws expanding the Court and nominate new ones.
 
2020-10-21 10:40:59 AM  

SplittingAces: Snacked in three, with Bluejeans and Eyeball kickers. Thread is now officially worthless.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-21 10:42:52 AM  

Skleenar: bluejeansonfire: Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open

Please.  Go spread disenchantment with among the democratic base among another, more friendly website, like Stormfront or TheDonald.com


And this is what will happen every time someone tries to push Biden left.
 
2020-10-21 10:44:13 AM  

Sophont: king of vegas: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

What would you like the Democrats to have done? Do you think that if Biden wins that he won't do anything?

Maybe you're just a troll. Or maybe you're Fark Independent (tm).

The answer, as ever, is to not fund farking concentration camps. Full stop.
You're Vichy frenching fascist boot leather if you suggest there's any other alternative.

And no, Biden has made no indication that he's going to do anything about the camps besides noncommital poltician speak. He could simply run on "CLOSE THE CAMPS", but Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan that they wouldn't eviscerate into noncommital politican speak.


No political party in the US can run on a platform of "stop kicking POC around" and win. It doesn't motivate enough white people in the right geographical areas to take over the Senate.
 
2020-10-21 10:45:17 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


I've gone bald.
 
2020-10-21 10:45:47 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


Pffft n00b 😉
 
2020-10-21 10:46:07 AM  
Wow - lotta former sax players up in here. Interesting. Want to start a support group or...something?
 
2020-10-21 10:46:24 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: If your primary goal is to throw a wrench into the Senate, go for the throat. Impeach McConnell.


You can't impeach a Senator. The Constitution does not work that way.
 
2020-10-21 10:47:22 AM  

king of vegas: I think seeing her get confirmed will be the best selling point to get the apathetic and third-party voters to see the consequences and your for Biden.


Why would apathetic or third-party people be interested in voting for a party who lets the other political party walk all over them without so much as a word of dissent?
 
2020-10-21 10:48:27 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: Wow - lotta former sax players up in here. Interesting. Want to start a support group or...something?


I, too, was an alto (later Bari) sax player.

My alto is now rotting (likely) in my childhood bedroom closet, one of those articles my parent's will never throw away because my kid may "use it someday"
 
2020-10-21 10:49:02 AM  

ElwoodCuse: TheMysteriousStranger: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.

Sure it does.

The Senate makes its own rules. It does so by majority vote and can change them by majority vote.

And as it stands now and indeed for your entire life, the leadership decides what goes to the floor and when unless some rule forces their hand. And all those exceptions will require Republican votes. The Republicans don't have to put anything on the floor that they don't want to. Just ask Merrick Garland.

the article specifically says making them change the rules to go through with the vote anyway would be a good thing too


There is no filibuster on rules changes. They can change the rules faster than the House can go through impeachment hearings at the judicial committee which they will have to do unless they too vote on rules changes. They will probably have to limit debate too as the clock is running.
 
2020-10-21 10:50:32 AM  
I mean, no. All of these "and then a miracle happens" strategies rely on Mitch McConnell simply acquiescing out of a sense of propriety or something, which means that they're hopelessly flawed. Barr's impeachment would be dealt with via a single vote, if it was dealt with at all. They've long since abandoned any fealty to Senate SOP, and sure as hell wouldn't with victory in sight.
 
2020-10-21 10:50:48 AM  

EyeballKid: And this is what will happen every time someone tries to push Biden left.


Or, go the fark out and campaign for a progressive, like I did last night.

But, sure, of course going on fark.com and moaning that democrats are just as bad, if not worse than trump will certainly fix things.
 
2020-10-21 10:54:13 AM  

Dr Dreidel: incendi: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Well, not according to the "rules" anyway.

Yeah, The Rules also said that Lindsay Graham couldn't hold a vote to pass Barrett's nomination out of the Judiciary Committee without at least two minority members present - wanna guess how long those rules held Graham up?


Which, I think, should give Dems the leverage to impeach and remove her even if she's confirmed. Broke the rules to appoint a judge? The process is declared null and void.
 
2020-10-21 10:55:08 AM  
Probably not, but a call to the senate building the day of the vote regarding "dangerous materials" hidden within the building would have senate security clear the vuildong for an unspecified amount of time for the search, delaying any business to be conducted that day.

I'm just saying.
 
2020-10-21 10:56:26 AM  

Skleenar: EyeballKid: And this is what will happen every time someone tries to push Biden left.

Or, go the fark out and campaign for a progressive, like I did last night.

But, sure, of course going on fark.com and moaning that democrats are just as bad, if not worse than trump will certainly fix things.


Sorry, my campaigning for a progressive was cut short when out-of-state donors, probably the same ones who've helped Dianne Feinstein stay in power, decided an empty uniform with no legislative experience was more suited to defeat Mitch McConnell than a black progressive with actual legislative experience for, *ahem*, reasons.

But you can phone bank for me this go-round, you still got so much faith in a self-styled opposition party that hasn't done shiat.
 
2020-10-21 10:56:50 AM  
I think we've all learned by now that impeachment only works when the opposition party controls the senate.
 
2020-10-21 10:57:51 AM  

Animatronik: Progressives have a clever cunning plan
[Fark user image 350x450]


Really?
 
2020-10-21 10:58:09 AM  

MechaPyx: Which, I think, should give Dems the leverage to impeach and remove her even if she's confirmed. Broke the rules to appoint a judge? The process is declared null and void.


Let's pretend that argument actually holds water.

They are, at absolute pie-in-the-sky best, going to have 55 seats.

Then let's pretend they make DC and PR states on day 1, and immediately get 4 more.

They're still 11 votes short even if every Democrat goes along with it.
 
2020-10-21 10:58:20 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: ElwoodCuse: TheMysteriousStranger: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: sleze: AdmirableSnackbar: koder: impeaching Attorney General Bill Barr - which would delay the confirmation vote for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Yeah I'm sure Moscow Mitch will give Treason Toad's acquittal top billing.

He doesn't have a choice.

Sure he does.  He can just schedule the impeachment for December.

That's not how it works.

Sure it does.

The Senate makes its own rules. It does so by majority vote and can change them by majority vote.

And as it stands now and indeed for your entire life, the leadership decides what goes to the floor and when unless some rule forces their hand. And all those exceptions will require Republican votes. The Republicans don't have to put anything on the floor that they don't want to. Just ask Merrick Garland.

the article specifically says making them change the rules to go through with the vote anyway would be a good thing too

There is no filibuster on rules changes. They can change the rules faster than the House can go through impeachment hearings at the judicial committee which they will have to do unless they too vote on rules changes. They will probably have to limit debate too as the clock is running.


no shiat. the point is *making them do it*
 
2020-10-21 10:59:50 AM  

lilbjorn: For the life of me I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet.


You are so close to realizing something so important. Keep going.
 
2020-10-21 11:03:38 AM  

Somacandra: Sophont: king of vegas: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

What would you like the Democrats to have done? Do you think that if Biden wins that he won't do anything?

Maybe you're just a troll. Or maybe you're Fark Independent (tm).

The answer, as ever, is to not fund farking concentration camps. Full stop.
You're Vichy frenching fascist boot leather if you suggest there's any other alternative.

And no, Biden has made no indication that he's going to do anything about the camps besides noncommital poltician speak. He could simply run on "CLOSE THE CAMPS", but Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan that they wouldn't eviscerate into noncommital politican speak.

No political party in the US can run on a platform of "stop kicking POC around" and win. It doesn't motivate enough white people in the right geographical areas to take over the Senate.


It's possible to run on other things at the same time as taking a stand for what is right. But like I said, Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan they won't eviscerate into noncommital politician speak. With the addendum, to avoid scaring white people who will never vote for them.
 
2020-10-21 11:04:39 AM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


I traded my big-ass shield for a 1999 Toyota Tacoma in 2014.
 
2020-10-21 11:05:49 AM  

BMFPitt: MechaPyx: Which, I think, should give Dems the leverage to impeach and remove her even if she's confirmed. Broke the rules to appoint a judge? The process is declared null and void.

Let's pretend that argument actually holds water.

They are, at absolute pie-in-the-sky best, going to have 55 seats.

Then let's pretend they make DC and PR states on day 1, and immediately get 4 more.

They're still 11 votes short even if every Democrat goes along with it.


This. Impeachment isn't the right tool in the toolbox. ACB and all of the crazies at the appellate level are here to stay.

The question is: given that they're here to stay, how do you minimize their influence? How do you take steps to prevent a situation where SCOTUS is wildly unreflective of the country as a whole? Luckily, those things *do* have legislative fixes.
 
2020-10-21 11:06:30 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: webron: AdmirableSnackbar: bluejeansonfire: Yeah. I'm sure the Democrats who have let the concentration camps stay open this whole time and let their most senior members continue to hug fascists and hand them victories are definitely the same people who will jump right on impeaching the man who once taunted them to bring their handcuffs. /s

Did everyone forget about the concentration camps that are still open?

Hell, we found out about forced hysterectomies and even the most ardent "Still with her!" accounts and politicians haven't said peep about it, much less taken any action.

Why won't those lousy democrats stop the republicans!  Oh wait, they can't.  The GOP controls the judiciary, the senate and the White House.  They can hold hearings after hearings.  But it won't get anything done.  The public at large doesn't care.  So shame on us as a country.  But showing everyone how weakness of the democrats' position won't help anything.

But keep trying to fracture the democrats, I'm sure Trump, McConnell  and Putin would thank you.

You don't get to tell me I'm trying to fracture the Democrats while also telling me the Democrats were right to vote to fund concentration camps and are right to have done nothing about any of it for the last year. The Democrats are obviously united in their support for the camps and the human rights violations occurring in them, and they have your full support, too.

And since I'm not on board with those things, I'm not a Democrat.


A-f*cking-men.

"If you criticize Democrats for throwing in the towel on concentration camps, you're just some sort of saboteur and you're what's REALLY wrong with America and you don't count as a liberal" has got to be some of the most sickening sh*t ever typed with a straight face on this site.

How on earth do you FarkDems think you have any reason or standing to demand support from people when you type sh*t like that.

Seriously, go join the Republican party. Most of you here are in denial about who they really are. Just get it over with and go be the Republicans you truly are, since concentration camps seem like just a "oopsie" to you instead of the horrific tipping point that it is to any sane and rational human who still gives a damn.
 
2020-10-21 11:06:42 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: king of vegas: I think seeing her get confirmed will be the best selling point to get the apathetic and third-party voters to see the consequences and your for Biden.

Why would apathetic or third-party people be interested in voting for a party who lets the other political party walk all over them without so much as a word of dissent?


Because they desperately want it to be true, and it theoretically lets them get more votes without having to do anything for anyone.
 
2020-10-21 11:07:01 AM  

Sophont: It's possible to run on other things at the same time as taking a stand for what is right. But like I said, Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan they won't eviscerate into noncommital politician speak. With the addendum, to avoid scaring white people who will never vote for them.


It took Democrats years just to be able to say "Black Lives Matter" and it's going to take them another decade or so to back policy that aligns with the idea there. Just like they're on board with saying "healthcare is a human right" because it's easy to say, even if they don't mean a single word of it. And it's why they have been working to put a stop to the anti-police protests ever since "defund the police" became a thing, they can't have something silly like good policy ideas getting in the way of what their donors want.
 
2020-10-21 11:07:59 AM  

bluenovaman: alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...

Sadly I have also parted from my beloved '73 Nova as well.


I'm on my 4th career since this party started.
 
2020-10-21 11:08:12 AM  

redonkulon: alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...

I sold mine for drug money in college.


fwiw, Charlie Parker did the same thing, LOTS of times.
 
2020-10-21 11:12:58 AM  

KiwDaWabbit: *screams in Hillary just wasn't inspiring*


Every time you people make this confirmation about some mythical "protest vote" boogeyman that exists only in your head, I will remind you of all the people who actually had a documented effect on the results of 2016.

- Republican voters
- White people, specifically white women
- Rich people
- Old people
- James Comey thumbing the scale in the 9th inning
- Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate with ample baggage

These people actually exist, unlike the Protest Voter Who Decided The Entire Election who frolics with jackalopes in your fever dreams.
 
2020-10-21 11:14:21 AM  

EyeballKid: Skleenar: EyeballKid: And this is what will happen every time someone tries to push Biden left.

Or, go the fark out and campaign for a progressive, like I did last night.

But, sure, of course going on fark.com and moaning that democrats are just as bad, if not worse than trump will certainly fix things.

Sorry, my campaigning for a progressive was cut short when out-of-state donors, probably the same ones who've helped Dianne Feinstein stay in power, decided an empty uniform with no legislative experience was more suited to defeat Mitch McConnell than a black progressive with actual legislative experience for, *ahem*, reasons.

But you can phone bank for me this go-round, you still got so much faith in a self-styled opposition party that hasn't done shiat.


Weird.  But you are aware you can phone bank, as I did, for candidates in OTHER districts?  I mean, it's really quite easy.

But, no, probably better to spend your time on fark dot com tearing down the only current possible power structure to challenge Donald Trump and his fascist GOP enablers.  I mean, it's what any patriot would do.
 
2020-10-21 11:14:49 AM  

SplittingAces: Snacked in three, with Bluejeans and Eyeball kickers. Thread is now officially worthless.


Oh sorry, I forget I'm intruding on your valuable time spent treating Mr. Vote From The Rooftops like a temporarily-embarrassed paragon of truth and reasonable discussion.
 
2020-10-21 11:19:29 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Seriously, go join the Republican party. Most of you here are in denial about who they really are. Just get it over with and go be the Republicans you truly are, since concentration camps seem like just a "oopsie" to you instead of the horrific tipping point that it is to any sane and rational human who still gives a damn.


Yes, all of us who think the better strategic move is to actually use the current existing power base to enact change, as frustratingly incremental or a slow as it may be, are actually cheering on concentration camps and love fascism.

I mean, I'm not going to make a BIG deal about how you are doing to others exactly what you, in your same quote, are claiming THEY are doing to you.  But I am going to point it out.
 
2020-10-21 11:22:51 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Sophont: It's possible to run on other things at the same time as taking a stand for what is right. But like I said, Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan they won't eviscerate into noncommital politician speak. With the addendum, to avoid scaring white people who will never vote for them.

It took Democrats years just to be able to say "Black Lives Matter" and it's going to take them another decade or so to back policy that aligns with the idea there. Just like they're on board with saying "healthcare is a human right" because it's easy to say, even if they don't mean a single word of it. And it's why they have been working to put a stop to the anti-police protests ever since "defund the police" became a thing, they can't have something silly like good policy ideas getting in the way of what their donors want.


Go phone bank for a progressive Dem, then.  Get the people who believe what you believe into positions of power.  Tip the power balance in favor of the direction you want to see.  Find one who rejects PACs or corporate donations.

Or, go to fark.dot.com and biatch about Pelosi.

Either one.  One of them is more like self-congratulatory mental masturbation than the other.  You can decide which.
 
2020-10-21 11:25:12 AM  

bluejeansonfire: Seriously, go join the Republican party. Most of you here are in denial about who they really are.


Fark centrists think the Republican Party is only for mustache-twirling billionaires, poor hillbillies, or evangelicals. And since they are Better Than Those People but Obviously Not Billionaires, they have to bring their conservative beliefs to the Democratic Party.
 
2020-10-21 11:25:27 AM  

king of vegas: durbnpoisn: There are 2 reasons they should absolutely do this:

1. Barr should be impeached because he has proven over and over again that he needs to be impeached.
2. It would delay Barrett's confirmation.

Considering that the majority of the country wants both of these things to happen, I really cannot imagine why the FARK they won't do it.

I mean c'mon, man...  The GOP is planning on subverting the will of the majority.  And they are going to do everything in their power to do just that.  So why they FARK won't the Democrats do something to block it?!

This IS the time.  The election is basically well underway.  They can't be concerned about this being a political move that might affect it.

Goddammit, Democrats! DO IT!!  Farking DO IT!!

I think seeing her get confirmed will be the best selling point to get the apathetic and third-party voters to see the consequences and your for Biden.

Hopefully we can expand the SCOTUS to 15 or something if we have a blue wave.


The vote is well underway.  Some 26M people have voted already.  That's a clean 10% of the voting population.  I believe I speak the truth when I say that's unprecedented.  And it also means that most of this country has already made up their minds.

Just the fact that the GOP has tried so hard to ram this judge through made their point.  Confirming her is just letting them win.  And it's not going to change the minds of anyone.  The GOP did the damage already.

So I disagree that it is helpful in ANY way to actually let them finish this process.  The Dems should do anything in their power to halt it.  And then rub their farking noses in in like a dog that shiat on the carpet.
 
2020-10-21 11:28:36 AM  

Metastatic Capricorn: Tarl3k: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Is this where we childishly compare account ages...because a username like yours is almost reprehensible today...

My original account, sinanju, is from 2005 and has 33 greens on it. I switched when I lost a brother to a glioblastoma... hence the new name.


Respect
 
2020-10-21 11:28:54 AM  

Skleenar: AdmirableSnackbar: Sophont: It's possible to run on other things at the same time as taking a stand for what is right. But like I said, Democrats never met a simple, impactful slogan they won't eviscerate into noncommital politician speak. With the addendum, to avoid scaring white people who will never vote for them.

It took Democrats years just to be able to say "Black Lives Matter" and it's going to take them another decade or so to back policy that aligns with the idea there. Just like they're on board with saying "healthcare is a human right" because it's easy to say, even if they don't mean a single word of it. And it's why they have been working to put a stop to the anti-police protests ever since "defund the police" became a thing, they can't have something silly like good policy ideas getting in the way of what their donors want.

Go phone bank for a progressive Dem, then.  Get the people who believe what you believe into positions of power.  Tip the power balance in favor of the direction you want to see.  Find one who rejects PACs or corporate donations.

Or, go to fark.dot.com and biatch about Pelosi.

Either one.  One of them is more like self-congratulatory mental masturbation than the other.  You can decide which.


The time to phone bank for progressives was the primary, not the general. I'm still donating and helping progressives candidates now, too, so thanks for the condescending attitude, that's really going to get me to be excited about helping Democrats in leadership who want nothing that I want.
 
2020-10-21 11:34:20 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: so thanks for the condescending attitude,


Lol.  I learned it from YOU, Dad!

And believe it or not, there are progressives to phone bank for in this election.

But, of course, calling Democrats fascists on www.fark.dot.com is a quicker endorphin rush, so that's cool, too.
 
2020-10-21 11:37:14 AM  

bluejeansonfire: A-f*cking-men.

"If you criticize Democrats for throwing in the towel on concentration camps, you're just some sort of saboteur and you're what's REALLY wrong with America and you don't count as a liberal" has got to be some of the most sickening sh*t ever typed with a straight face on this site.

How on earth do you FarkDems think you have any reason or standing to demand support from people when you type sh*t like that.

Seriously, go join the Republican party. Most of you here are in denial about who they really are. Just get it over with and go be the Republicans you truly are, since concentration camps seem like just a "oopsie" to you instead of the horrific tipping point that it is to any sane and rational human who still gives a damn.


Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!
 
2020-10-21 11:39:34 AM  

Somacandra: Chthonic Echoes: If your primary goal is to throw a wrench into the Senate, go for the throat. Impeach McConnell.

You can't impeach a Senator. The Constitution does not work that way.


It seems like an open question whether the Constitution works at all, at this point.
 
2020-10-21 11:41:18 AM  

Skleenar: AdmirableSnackbar: so thanks for the condescending attitude,

Lol.  I learned it from YOU, Dad!

And believe it or not, there are progressives to phone bank for in this election.

But, of course, calling Democrats fascists on www.fark.dot.com is a quicker endorphin rush, so that's cool, too.


Yes and until Democrats start supporting good ideas those progressive candidates will get my money only, not my time phone banking. Plus, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly a people person, do you really want me on the phone trying to convince a conservative Democrat that they're wrong to not support a progressive?
 
2020-10-21 11:43:05 AM  
NO.

Even assuming that the House got it's shiat together quickly enough to submit articles of impeachment, the Senate could (and would) summarily dismiss with a majority vote.
 
2020-10-21 11:44:16 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Skleenar: AdmirableSnackbar: so thanks for the condescending attitude,

Lol.  I learned it from YOU, Dad!

And believe it or not, there are progressives to phone bank for in this election.

But, of course, calling Democrats fascists on www.fark.dot.com is a quicker endorphin rush, so that's cool, too.

Yes and until Democrats start supporting good ideas those progressive candidates will get my money only, not my time phone banking. Plus, if you haven't noticed I'm not exactly a people person, do you really want me on the phone trying to convince a conservative Democrat that they're wrong to not support a progressive?


I do! Plus record it so I can hear your angry rant while the conservative Democrat whines out another Republican talking point in an attempt to deflect criticism!
 
2020-10-21 11:45:13 AM  

Chthonic Echoes: Somacandra: Chthonic Echoes: If your primary goal is to throw a wrench into the Senate, go for the throat. Impeach McConnell.

You can't impeach a Senator. The Constitution does not work that way.

It seems like an open question whether the Constitution works at all, at this point.


Don't worry, I recall most states having another option.
 
2020-10-21 11:47:21 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope:

Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!


Where are these people saying these things?  Are you going to the same Fark.com I am?

Because, it kind of just seems that you are making up shiat to drive a wedge in the opposition to the GOP.  But that would of course be too cynical for a anonymous poster on an internet discussion site.
 
2020-10-21 11:53:51 AM  

Albino Squid: The question is: given that they're here to stay, how do you minimize their influence? How do you take steps to prevent a situation where SCOTUS is wildly unreflective of the country as a whole? Luckily, those things *do* have legislative fixes.


The problem with court packing is it's guaranteed to become an arms race that destroys the court.

The only way to do it is to increase the number to 25, effective in 2022.  Then pass an amendment limiting the number to 11, and adding reforms about confirmation.
 
2020-10-21 11:56:19 AM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


Tell me about it...
 
2020-10-21 12:01:21 PM  

Skleenar: the only current possible power structure to challenge Donald Trump and his fascist GOP enablers.


cdn.cnn.comView Full Size

Oh, you mean this woman's party?
 
2020-10-21 12:06:18 PM  

EyeballKid: Oh, you mean this woman's party?


That was some weak-ass bullshiat from DiFi. Yes.
Not sure where I was on record saying there is no room for improvement in the Democratic party, or that the leadership is perfect, tho.

Or that there are no frustrations in the tactic I advocate.
 
2020-10-21 12:06:33 PM  
And as a rebuttal, he acquiesces to Trump and announces charges against Biden causing a massive election upset.

Yeah, don't tempt the beast.

Horrendously dumb idea.
 
2020-10-21 12:06:50 PM  

Bovine Diarrhea Virus: Barrett's confirmation is a foregone conclusion.
Impeaching Barr
1) would  be a waste of time.  The Senate doesn't have the votes.
2) would be seen as politically motivated at this point in the election
3) might unify Republican voters at the polls

4) would only delay confirmation by a week. Maybe.

ACB is going to be confirmed. The Supreme Court is lost for now.  Get through the election, and hopefully the Democrats will control the White House and Congress. Then we'll see what they have in store for the Judicial Branch.


Remember when Fark ProgressivesTM demanded Trump be impeached ASAP because, goddammit, we had to do it and it was going to make a huge difference?  Well, that was less than a year ago and I think it's safe to say not a single mind was changed by the impeachment.  So now the subject has come again except this time around, there's a chance it may hurt the Dems chances of getting elected by making a blatantly partisan move this close to the election.  No one has any doubt to the outcome, just as no one doubts that Mitch can simply change the Senate rules today and just ignore any impeachment.  But the chance to hurt the Democrats has got Fark ProgressivesTM here salivating like never before.  Gee, why might that be?
 
2020-10-21 12:09:55 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: do you really want me on the phone trying to convince a conservative Democrat that they're wrong to not support a progressive?


That's kind of not how phone banking really works.  If you're trying to change someone's mind, you've wasted your time.  Mostly your successes are from spurring otherwise uncommitted voters to vote, or getting commitments simply because you asked for their vote.  Or even telling people how to vote.

Convincing partisans is useless and a waste of time.
 
2020-10-21 12:12:34 PM  

Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope:

Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!

Where are these people saying these things?  Are you going to the same Fark.com I am?

Because, it kind of just seems that you are making up shiat to drive a wedge in the opposition to the GOP. But that would of course be too cynical for a anonymous poster on an internet discussion site.


Ding ding ding!  There are more than a few disingenuous posters here.  They tend to cluster in threads like this one where they can bash Democrats under the guise of deep deep concern.
 
2020-10-21 12:14:52 PM  

alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...


Some things are also not as private as they used to be...
 
2020-10-21 12:18:24 PM  

Skleenar: Convincing partisans is useless and a waste of time.


No shiat. That's why Democrats hate me.
 
2020-10-21 12:22:35 PM  

lilbjorn: For the life of me I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet.


Well, it would be against long standing customs.  And if the Dems did this, well then the GOP might turn it atomic at some other date, so they need to sit back and do nothing to not anger the beast.
 
2020-10-21 12:24:25 PM  

Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope:

Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!

Where are these people saying these things?  Are you going to the same Fark.com I am?

Because, it kind of just seems that you are making up shiat to drive a wedge in the opposition to the GOP.  But that would of course be too cynical for a anonymous poster on an internet discussion site.


Well, like udhq claiming that pushing for Single-Payer Healthcare would be "eliminating our civic institutions": https://www.fark.com/c​omments/10912463​/128586231#c128586231

Or Kazan trying to convince us that Biden is left wing and not the Democratic Conservative shown per his Senate voting history: "He's always been much further left than a lot of people want to portray him as being.": https://www.fark.com/comment​s/10814649​/127135007#c127135007

Or Hillary herself saying Single-Payer Healthcare will "Never, ever happen" - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillar​y-c​linton-single-payer-health-care-will-n​ever-ever-happen/
 
2020-10-21 12:24:31 PM  

BMFPitt: MechaPyx: Which, I think, should give Dems the leverage to impeach and remove her even if she's confirmed. Broke the rules to appoint a judge? The process is declared null and void.

Let's pretend that argument actually holds water.

They are, at absolute pie-in-the-sky best, going to have 55 seats.

Then let's pretend they make DC and PR states on day 1, and immediately get 4 more.

They're still 11 votes short even if every Democrat goes along with it.


Which they won't because Democrats.

Also, wouldn't they also need 2/3 for statehoods? Not sure, but I suspect that can't happen either.
 
2020-10-21 12:31:36 PM  

quatchi: Could?
Should?
Yes.
Will?
Aye, there's the rub.
The GOP are lawless and Mitch DGAF.


Honestly it might be the dumbest thing the DNC could push for at this point
 
2020-10-21 12:36:02 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope:

Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!

Where are these people saying these things?  Are you going to the same Fark.com I am?

Because, it kind of just seems that you are making up shiat to drive a wedge in the opposition to the GOP.  But that would of course be too cynical for a anonymous poster on an internet discussion site.

Well, like udhq claiming that pushing for Single-Payer Healthcare would be "eliminating our civic institutions": https://www.fark.com/co​mments/10912463/128586231#c128586231

Or Kazan trying to convince us that Biden is left wing and not the Democratic Conservative shown per his Senate voting history: "He's always been much further left than a lot of people want to portray him as being.": https://www.fark.com/comments​/10814649/127135007#c127135007

Or Hillary herself saying Single-Payer Healthcare will "Never, ever happen" - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary​-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will​-never-ever-happen/


your evidence is, well, unconvincing.
 
2020-10-21 12:37:14 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Also, wouldn't they also need 2/3 for statehoods? Not sure, but I suspect that can't happen either.


Simple majority.
 
2020-10-21 12:42:33 PM  

Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope: Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope:

Seems like alot of these FarkDems are already part of the Republican party, especially since they use Republican talking points to put down Progressive ideas such as Single-payer healthcare: "We don't know how to pay for it." and "Sanders' plan will cause people to lose their health insurance!"; Black Lives Matter: "They're just not protesting 'The Right Way'."; Minimum Wage: "It's unfair to have a fast food worker making the same wage as an EMT!"; and other progressive ideas, many of which are successfully implemented in other industrialized countries! While at the same time, trying to convince us that Biden is the "Most progressive presidential candidate in history." I refuse to drink the Centrist/Conservative Democrats' cyanide laced Flavor-Aid drink!

Where are these people saying these things?  Are you going to the same Fark.com I am?

Because, it kind of just seems that you are making up shiat to drive a wedge in the opposition to the GOP.  But that would of course be too cynical for a anonymous poster on an internet discussion site.

Well, like udhq claiming that pushing for Single-Payer Healthcare would be "eliminating our civic institutions": https://www.fark.com/co​mments/10912463/128586231#c128586231

Or Kazan trying to convince us that Biden is left wing and not the Democratic Conservative shown per his Senate voting history: "He's always been much further left than a lot of people want to portray him as being.": https://www.fark.com/comments​/10814649/127135007#c127135007

Or Hillary herself saying Single-Payer Healthcare will "Never, ever happen" - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary​-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will​-never-ever-happen/

your evidence is, well, unconvincing.


To you, not to the other Progressives here who have seen Centrist/Conservative Democrats tell us that "You're trying to make Biden lose." by pointing out faults and positions that Biden needs to correct in order not to "pull a Hillary" and lose the election (despite winning the popular vote, she still lost, no matter how many times FarkDems try to claim she "won" because more people voted for her than voted for Trump). In a more normal situation, sans Covid-19, one of those advices would be "Don't skip over states that you think are either a 'sure thing' or 'not worth your time'." because they might not be a sure thing or could still flip to you if you convince enough non-voters to get off their asses and vote because you are worth voting for!
 
2020-10-21 1:03:56 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: your evidence is, well, unconvincing.

To you, not to the other Progressives here


Fark user imageView Full Size


I can't even find the thread of logic that made you assert this says what you purport it says.

Fark user imageView Full Size


This is simply one person's read of Biden's record and his best guess at his motivations.

And Hillary saying single payer isn't going to happen?  That isn't her saying it shouldn't happen.  That's the (perhaps jaded) voice of someone who was brutalized trying to make it happen.

So, again, your evidence of a widespread fascist core to the moderate wing of the Democratic party is weak sauce.
 
2020-10-21 1:28:04 PM  

bluejeansonfire: KiwDaWabbit: *screams in Hillary just wasn't inspiring*

Every time you people make this confirmation about some mythical "protest vote" boogeyman that exists only in your head, I will remind you of all the people who actually had a documented effect on the results of 2016.

- Republican voters
- White people, specifically white women
- Rich people
- Old people
- James Comey thumbing the scale in the 9th inning
- Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate with ample baggage

These people actually exist, unlike the Protest Voter Who Decided The Entire Election who frolics with jackalopes in your fever dreams.


So the ninety million people who didn't vote in 2016 conceivably would not have had any type of impact on the election had they voted? Fascinating!

Lower voter turnout is great for Democrats says everyone ever!
 
2020-10-21 1:29:00 PM  

SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.


I've cut back on drinking and embraced optimism ...
 
2020-10-21 1:33:24 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: bluejeansonfire: KiwDaWabbit: *screams in Hillary just wasn't inspiring*

Every time you people make this confirmation about some mythical "protest vote" boogeyman that exists only in your head, I will remind you of all the people who actually had a documented effect on the results of 2016.

- Republican voters
- White people, specifically white women
- Rich people
- Old people
- James Comey thumbing the scale in the 9th inning
- Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate with ample baggage

These people actually exist, unlike the Protest Voter Who Decided The Entire Election who frolics with jackalopes in your fever dreams.

So the ninety million people who didn't vote in 2016 conceivably would not have had any type of impact on the election had they voted? Fascinating!

Lower voter turnout is great for Democrats says everyone ever!


2020 will be the first time in my life that "I'm not the other guy" is a winning election strategy. I'd suggest finding better candidates with better arguments and policies in the future, otherwise you're not giving those millions of people much reason to get to the polls.
 
2020-10-21 1:47:57 PM  

Drunk and Bitter Jesus: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

I've cut back on drinking and embraced optimism ...


If Drew ever wanted some quick cash, fee-for-renames would totally net some buccoroos from me.
 
2020-10-21 1:51:22 PM  
Impeach him anyway?
 
2020-10-21 2:01:46 PM  
AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: bluejeansonfire: KiwDaWabbit: *screams in Hillary just wasn't inspiring*

Every time you people make this confirmation about some mythical "protest vote" boogeyman that exists only in your head, I will remind you of all the people who actually had a documented effect on the results of 2016.

- Republican voters
- White people, specifically white women
- Rich people
- Old people
- James Comey thumbing the scale in the 9th inning
- Hillary Clinton being a bad candidate with ample baggage

These people actually exist, unlike the Protest Voter Who Decided The Entire Election who frolics with jackalopes in your fever dreams.

So the ninety million people who didn't vote in 2016 conceivably would not have had any type of impact on the election had they voted? Fascinating!

Lower voter turnout is great for Democrats says everyone ever!

2020 will be the first time in my life that "I'm not the other guy" is a winning election strategy. I'd suggest finding better candidates with better arguments and policies in the future, otherwise you're not giving those millions of people much reason to get to the polls.


I was one of those who said that Hillary Clinton wasn't a good candidate and I was attacked for it quite vigorously. Yet, I still voted for her because I saw Trump as an existential threat to Democracy. He said he was gonna.

That being said, one thing that grinds my gears is when someone is apoplectic about Amy Comey Barrett being a shoo-in for a Supreme Court nomination and is bound to have a tenure that will certainly harm millions of Americans yet stood by at the moment it all could have been prevented. This idea that the DNC is going to be "punished" into listening is a joke. Accelerationism is a joke. The Trump Presidency has been a boon for Democratic fundraising, which is the next best thing to having your candidate win. If we want better candidates, it stands to reason that getting even less involved is going to continually backfire, as is evidenced by the response to displeasure with Clinton being followed up by a 77-year-old white man who's talking about appointing Republicans to his cabinet being the nominee. If people stay at home again, I don't think the DNC is going to get that message. We're in this spot because of inaction, not because of action. The time to take action to nominate a different candidate has long passed. What progressives arguably have now is primarily damage mitigation interwoven with a few agreeable policy points. Things will get worse if this sh*thole Presidency doesn't end. It's just a question of who among those who oppose him are completely okay with that.
 
2020-10-21 2:07:11 PM  

bluenovaman: alto_reed_on_a_tenor_sax: SVC_conservative: vudukungfu: SVC_conservative: [media1.tenor.com image 498x275] [View Full Size image _x_]

user name...

I'm a much different person than I was 14 years ago, but I am not giving up that sweet sweet Fark account age.

Dude, I don't even OWN a saxophone anymore...

Sadly I have also parted from my beloved '73 Nova as well.


I'm a lieutenant now.
 
2020-10-21 2:08:54 PM  

RainDawg: Let's try it and find out. What do we have to lose?


Came to say exactly this.
 
2020-10-21 2:22:33 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: The Trump Presidency has been a boon for Democratic fundraising, which is the next best thing to having your candidate win.


Well this attitude certainly is...interesting...
 
2020-10-21 2:32:11 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: The Trump Presidency has been a boon for Democratic fundraising, which is the next best thing to having your candidate win.

Well this attitude certainly is...interesting...


It's not my personal attitude, but what I believe the DNC's attitude likely is (I could be wrong). I don't agree with it in principle. If we want real societal and/or systemic change, there are generally two options:

1. Work within the system.
2. Create your own system.

That's it, those are the options.

What I'm saying is that it's within two weeks of Election Day. The candidates are and have long been set. It's impossible to have fundamental change before then. We have an opportunity to get the bad (or, if you please, worse) people out of office. One thing I do like about Biden, and it may be my perception, is that he might listen once in office. He also might not, but I'll tell you with 100% certainty who won't listen to progressive opinions.

You may disagree, but I just think there are times for different things. I feel like right now is the time to go out there and get done what we can get done and hopefully not have to worry about staring down the barrel of a 7-2 Supreme Court (Breyer is 82), just as an example.
 
2020-10-21 2:38:22 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: The Trump Presidency has been a boon for Democratic fundraising, which is the next best thing to having your candidate win.

Well this attitude certainly is...interesting...

It's not my personal attitude, but what I believe the DNC's attitude likely is (I could be wrong). I don't agree with it in principle. If we want real societal and/or systemic change, there are generally two options:

1. Work within the system.
2. Create your own system.

That's it, those are the options.

What I'm saying is that it's within two weeks of Election Day. The candidates are and have long been set. It's impossible to have fundamental change before then. We have an opportunity to get the bad (or, if you please, worse) people out of office. One thing I do like about Biden, and it may be my perception, is that he might listen once in office. He also might not, but I'll tell you with 100% certainty who won't listen to progressive opinions.

You may disagree, but I just think there are times for different things. I feel like right now is the time to go out there and get done what we can get done and hopefully not have to worry about staring down the barrel of a 7-2 Supreme Court (Breyer is 82), just as an example.


I've already voted, so for me the election is over. All I'm saying is that Biden is going to win on a campaign message that's entirely "I'm not Trump." And while it's...ok, I guess, that Biden will win, it's only going to do as much good as Democrats will allow to be done.

And the larger point is that if you don't have any real message or any real ideas or any vision for the future of the country, you're not going to motivate people to get to the polls. So you can complain that "none of the above" won the election in 2016 and that people didn't do what you wanted them to do, but none of that changes the fact that there is no reason for people who have been marginalized by politics to engage in the political process.

Obama had something to say about it in 2008 and nobody listened to him - Republicans because they hated him, Democrats because they thought he was only talking about Republicans.
 
2020-10-21 2:50:33 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: The Trump Presidency has been a boon for Democratic fundraising, which is the next best thing to having your candidate win.

Well this attitude certainly is...interesting...

It's not my personal attitude, but what I believe the DNC's attitude likely is (I could be wrong). I don't agree with it in principle. If we want real societal and/or systemic change, there are generally two options:

1. Work within the system.
2. Create your own system.

That's it, those are the options.

What I'm saying is that it's within two weeks of Election Day. The candidates are and have long been set. It's impossible to have fundamental change before then. We have an opportunity to get the bad (or, if you please, worse) people out of office. One thing I do like about Biden, and it may be my perception, is that he might listen once in office. He also might not, but I'll tell you with 100% certainty who won't listen to progressive opinions.

You may disagree, but I just think there are times for different things. I feel like right now is the time to go out there and get done what we can get done and hopefully not have to worry about staring down the barrel of a 7-2 Supreme Court (Breyer is 82), just as an example.

I've already voted, so for me the election is over. All I'm saying is that Biden is going to win on a campaign message that's entirely "I'm not Trump." And while it's...ok, I guess, that Biden will win, it's only going to do as much good as Democrats will allow to be done.

And the larger point is that if you don't have any real message or any real ideas or any vision for the future of the country, you're not going to motivate people to get to the polls. So you can complain that "none of the above" won the election in 2016 and that people didn't do what you wanted them to do, but none of that changes the fact that there is no reason for people who have been marginalized by politics to engage in the political process.

Obama had something to say about it in 2008 and nobody listened to him - Republicans because they hated him, Democrats because they thought he was only talking about Republicans.


I understand what you're saying, but it's much less about what I wanted them to do and more about hearing about how they didn't get the outcome that they wanted. What I go back to is that disengagement from the political system will make those who feel marginalized in fact more marginalized. I'm empathetic to their viewpoint, but I encourage more engagement where possible. I know it's hard for people. I know that things are designed to discourage people from engaging. I know it's a vicious cycle. But it's so damn important, and I can only hope that more and more people are starting to wake up to that.
 
2020-10-21 2:53:19 PM  

hobbes0022: Can Pelosi just whip enough votes to impeach members of the Senate? That would be sure to slow down the process.  Half the Senate can be brought up on charges of insider trading.


Senators can't be impeached.

They can be expelled by a 2/3 vote of the Senate, but that process originates in the Senate not the House.
 
2020-10-21 2:59:43 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: I understand what you're saying, but it's much less about what I wanted them to do and more about hearing about how they didn't get the outcome that they wanted. What I go back to is that disengagement from the political system will make those who feel marginalized in fact more marginalized. I'm empathetic to their viewpoint, but I encourage more engagement where possible. I know it's hard for people. I know that things are designed to discourage people from engaging. I know it's a vicious cycle. But it's so damn important, and I can only hope that more and more people are starting to wake up to that.


If people vote for politicians who don't care about them or their problems - to the point of campaigning on how little they care about them or their problems - how will that change anything?

Politicians get the voters they want to get. Democrats only want the "I like what Republicans want, I just don't like Republicans" vote.
 
2020-10-21 2:59:55 PM  

Mr Guy: Chthonic Echoes: Somacandra: Chthonic Echoes: If your primary goal is to throw a wrench into the Senate, go for the throat. Impeach McConnell.

You can't impeach a Senator. The Constitution does not work that way.

It seems like an open question whether the Constitution works at all, at this point.

Don't worry, I recall most states having another option.


Although many states have laws allowing for recall of governors and other positions, no states have any laws for recall of U.S. Senators.  Even if any had such laws, it's not clear they would be constitutional.
 
2020-10-21 3:34:15 PM  

Skleenar: DarkSoulNoHope: your evidence is, well, unconvincing.

To you, not to the other Progressives here

[Fark user image 850x174]

I can't even find the thread of logic that made you assert this says what you purport it says.

[Fark user image 850x208]

This is simply one person's read of Biden's record and his best guess at his motivations.

And Hillary saying single payer isn't going to happen?  That isn't her saying it shouldn't happen.  That's the (perhaps jaded) voice of someone who was brutalized trying to make it happen.

So, again, your evidence of a widespread fascist core to the moderate wing of the Democratic party is weak sauce.


Well the Boobies I linked to from a FarkDem, is implying that the only people who want Single-Payer Healthcare are wealthy white kids living under their parents (also implying by that extension that all progressives are only wealthy white kids who wanna spite their parents, yet are "safe" living under their parents). Also the post is defending our current system of forced private health insurance purchasing under the ACA or Medicare/Medicaid (depending on what your eligible for) and discounting arguments to change it to something better because they claim it would somehow (but don't describe how) it would hurt minorities using the system. (if "Medicare for All" got implemented under Bernie's plan, all age restrictions would be rescinded, coverage would be greatly increased including for things not previously covered such as vision, hearing and dental, your insurance premiums would be now part of your taxes and those taxes would be much lower than your current taxes + insurance premiums you're paying and no co-pays, deductibles nor other upfront costs; Biden should be promoting this during a pandemic where you don't know if getting COVID-19 treatment will bankrupt you, not telling his constituents that he will veto it!)

The second FarkDem post is trying to claim Biden is a progressive and that's why Obama picked him, not taking into account Biden's record (which actual progressives are trying to get him to change his mind on things he voted for or against in the past, as well as not vetoing Medicare for All if the Dems in the Congress and Senate can get it passed during his presidential term, so progressive ideas would actually be implemented and would show more people that voting for him would get them things they need). It's exactly as I described of trying to convince us that we're completely wrong about Biden, even though his voting history tells us differently.

As for Hillary, she wasn't "brutalized" for trying to make Single-Payer Healthcare happen in 1993 with her husband, she was bribed since then by the same people she was fighting against: CNN Money - Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
 
2020-10-21 3:43:06 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: I understand what you're saying, but it's much less about what I wanted them to do and more about hearing about how they didn't get the outcome that they wanted. What I go back to is that disengagement from the political system will make those who feel marginalized in fact more marginalized. I'm empathetic to their viewpoint, but I encourage more engagement where possible. I know it's hard for people. I know that things are designed to discourage people from engaging. I know it's a vicious cycle. But it's so damn important, and I can only hope that more and more people are starting to wake up to that.

If people vote for politicians who don't care about them or their problems - to the point of campaigning on how little they care about them or their problems - how will that change anything?


As I said earlier, working within the system or creating a new system altogether are the viable two options. I guess that wishing in one hand and sh*tting in the other to see which one fills up first is a third option, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Politicians get the voters they want to get. Democrats only want the "I like what Republicans want, I just don't like Republicans" vote.

The GOP didn't unveil an official political platform at the RNC. They literally don't have an official platform, though we would likely be in a rough agreement of what their platform is in reality. I don't agree with your statement above at face value because I don't believe that those types of voters genuinely make up the 50% of likely voters who are favoring Biden in the polls. However, I will say that I do think progressives get thrown under the bus exactly because they consistently threaten to not participate (or just don't participate without the threatening). It's a natural political strategy to appeal to the biggest active voting blocs. If college kids voted at a 90% plus rate, the candidates would be on college campuses, for example. That's much of why old people continue to have Medicare and Social Security while the rest of the country isn't even sniffing single-payer or UBI. They vote. This is what I've been trying to say. If a group constantly makes overtures about either not voting or casting third party protest votes, guess which place in line they're going to be when it comes time to cut bait? If progressive likely voters vastly outnumbered centrist likely voters, then there's a real chance that the party would shift. I just don't see sitting on the sidelines bringing about substantive change. It sounds like we may disagree on that core point. No hard feelings, I hope.
 
2020-10-21 3:58:39 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: As I said earlier, working within the system or creating a new system altogether are the viable two options. I guess that wishing in one hand and sh*tting in the other to see which one fills up first is a third option, but I wouldn't recommend it.


That doesn't answer my question, though. Working within the system doesn't mean anything if the system doesn't work back with participants. I keep stressing this, Obama talked about it in 2008. Those who get ostracized by the political process check out and we can't expect them to participate by offering the same things that ostracized them in the first place. Rewarding conservative Democrats with votes won't make them any more progressive.

If progressive likely voters vastly outnumbered centrist likely voters, then there's a real chance that the party would shift.

What makes you think that? There's literally nothing that indicates this. For instance, 90% of Democratic voters approve of M4A, including 60% of all likely voters. And yet, M4A is not on the ballot - to the point where the Democratic candidate has promised to veto it should it reach his desk.

So there's evidence that proves you wrong, and I could go point-by-point, policy-by-policy, and show how disconnected the Democratic Party is from its voters.

I just don't see sitting on the sidelines bringing about substantive change. It sounds like we may disagree on that core point. No hard feelings, I hope.

I don't see how participating in the process will bring about substantive change, either. No hard feelings at all, just a wonderment about how what you're saying as theory fails to translate to reality, because it is failing. The Democratic Party is far, far more conservative than Democratic-leaning voters and participation in the process doesn't change that one bit. So what to do next?
 
2020-10-21 4:24:28 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: As I said earlier, working within the system or creating a new system altogether are the viable two options. I guess that wishing in one hand and sh*tting in the other to see which one fills up first is a third option, but I wouldn't recommend it.

That doesn't answer my question, though. Working within the system doesn't mean anything if the system doesn't work back with participants. I keep stressing this, Obama talked about it in 2008. Those who get ostracized by the political process check out and we can't expect them to participate by offering the same things that ostracized them in the first place. Rewarding conservative Democrats with votes won't make them any more progressive.

If progressive likely voters vastly outnumbered centrist likely voters, then there's a real chance that the party would shift.

What makes you think that? There's literally nothing that indicates this. For instance, 90% of Democratic voters approve of M4A, including 60% of all likely voters. And yet, M4A is not on the ballot - to the point where the Democratic candidate has promised to veto it should it reach his desk.

So there's evidence that proves you wrong, and I could go point-by-point, policy-by-policy, and show how disconnected the Democratic Party is from its voters.

I just don't see sitting on the sidelines bringing about substantive change. It sounds like we may disagree on that core point. No hard feelings, I hope.

I don't see how participating in the process will bring about substantive change, either. No hard feelings at all, just a wonderment about how what you're saying as theory fails to translate to reality, because it is failing. The Democratic Party is far, far more conservative than Democratic-leaning voters and participation in the process doesn't change that one bit. So what to do next?


I don't know if there are build-up steps to it or what, but I suspect that a good deal of that disconnect is that we rely on national issue polling, yet the Presidential election is won on a state by state basis. Similar deals with statewide Senatorial elections and district-specific House elections. So, if the issues poll differently in places like Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, IA01, CA45, and FL27, that helps to explain away the disconnect.

In terms of the Presidency, doing away with the Electoral College would, at the very least, provide a much stronger "connect" or relationship between national issue polling and state by state favorability polling. I admittedly haven't done the research on the state by state issue polling data, so my suspicion on that could be wrong. I still stand by my assertion that abolishing the Electoral College should be a thing for other reasons.

If the system, in terms of the DNC, can't be changed, then it may be time to talk about a new political party, which I understand is virtually impossible in this country, but I think there's still a small hope of the framework possibly changing. I think we need to encourage more bomb-throwers to run. Not necessarily Trumpian, but people who can actually not get beat at every turn when they try to get out a narrative. This is difficult because I believe there are still two standards. By now, Republicans are more or less expected to kick over all the pieces, sh*t on the chessboard, and declare victory while if a Democrat talks during someone else's move, they're lambasted for being so disruptive. I think change is slowly happening, as evidenced by The Squad. Maybe it starts in Congress and they're able to build up more of a contingency. Whatever the answer is, it's gonna take time. Most of the positive changes in this country have been incremental. Even more than a few of what might be portrayed as sweeping changes had more incremental buildups.
 
2020-10-21 4:36:55 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: If the system, in terms of the DNC, can't be changed, then it may be time to talk about a new political party, which I understand is virtually impossible in this country, but I think there's still a small hope of the framework possibly changing.


This really is my hope. And I have a feeling we're due for another polar reversal between the political parties. There's literally nowhere for the Republican Party to go from here, assuming they lose big, except left-of-center. Democrats have been pushing right for decades, to the point where they're economically solidly to the right of where Republicans were 40 years ago. Perhaps we get Republicans realizing that they have no future - young people see no value in capitalism and have no fear of socialism, so in 10-15 years Republicans in their current form will be nothing more than a state- and local-level party if they stay where they are. It would be absolutely hysterical if Republicans reverted back to their 1940s and 50s pro-union, pro-worker platform and outflanked the Democrats who themselves have drifted too far to the right as well.

Plus there's always the possibility that the Lincoln Project farkholes start a new conservative party and take all the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/Feinstein/Buttigi​eg conservative douchebags with them and the Democratic Party pushes left.
 
2020-10-21 4:53:31 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: KiwDaWabbit: If the system, in terms of the DNC, can't be changed, then it may be time to talk about a new political party, which I understand is virtually impossible in this country, but I think there's still a small hope of the framework possibly changing.

This really is my hope. And I have a feeling we're due for another polar reversal between the political parties. There's literally nowhere for the Republican Party to go from here, assuming they lose big, except left-of-center. Democrats have been pushing right for decades, to the point where they're economically solidly to the right of where Republicans were 40 years ago. Perhaps we get Republicans realizing that they have no future - young people see no value in capitalism and have no fear of socialism, so in 10-15 years Republicans in their current form will be nothing more than a state- and local-level party if they stay where they are. It would be absolutely hysterical if Republicans reverted back to their 1940s and 50s pro-union, pro-worker platform and outflanked the Democrats who themselves have drifted too far to the right as well.

Plus there's always the possibility that the Lincoln Project farkholes start a new conservative party and take all the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer/Feinstein/Buttigi​eg conservative douchebags with them and the Democratic Party pushes left.


I've been hoping for a while that this decade has essentially been the last gasp of white supremacy, but going back to the original topic of this thread, it looks like it will be alive and well in the Supreme Court and lower courts for some time to come. On a more positive note, our demographics are changing, and I think that's a lot of what has spurred this on in the first place (fear of the "other"). With the amount of economic insecurity, high unemployment, lack of healthcare, et cetera, people are surely figuring out that American-style crony capitalism isn't working. I think Trump had this figured out in 2016, which is why his brand of fake populism worked well enough to get him elected. A pole reversal is quite possible because current day Republicanism will soon enough be unsustainable when you're edging ever closer to exclusively appealing to white people.

One of the most interesting things will be what happens to all of Trump's supporters if he loses.
 
2020-10-21 5:01:40 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: One of the most interesting things will be what happens to all of Trump's supporters if he loses.


I'm less concerned about that than I am about what they do if there actually are prosecutions of Trump and his team. They've lost elections before so that's not a big deal, they will plan to be right back in 2022 because obviously losing the House was a big factor in bringing down Trump in the long run.

But if their heroes get arrested and convicted, all bets are off. And the worst part is that the good Democrats - The Squad and other progressives - will bear the brunt of their anger. Yet it's possible that once again the bad Democrats get their way and there are no prosecutions, precisely because they're afraid of Republican extremists and want bipartisanship and cross-aisle friendships more than any actual policy ideas.

It just bugs me that neither party gives one fark about preparing for the future. Of course, if they did that we'd have had universal health care and a more equitable economy decades ago.
 
Displayed 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.