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  
•       •       •

3521 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Oct 2020 at 9:57 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



171 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 21 of 171 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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.