You're viewing a single thread.
Between “Democrats say ‘Vote’” and “Democrats do nothing to fight back,” they didn’t vote in 2016.
This Supreme Court is a result of that inaction.
Congratulations on demonstrating how voter abstention hands the government to Republicans.
Let’s not do that any more.
We had 8 good years before that and didn't set up any protections.
With a heavily divided legislature that only just passed the ACA before it exploded.
You had the first 2 years of Obama. Obama's thanks for the ACA was voters not showing up and losing the house of representatives for year 3 and 4. And again for year 5 and 6. And then both the house and Senate in years 7 and 8. So no you didn't have 8 years with Obama, you had 2 years with Obama because voters did not show up. Congress is what passes laws and has power. They even shut down the freaking government under Obama.
Only Congress can increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. We had two years of congressional majority in the last twenty. They focused on healthcare.
How could they have possibly predicted that they’d need to expand and pack the Supreme Court to prevent the next President from becoming a dictator?
They focused on healthcare.
And they gave us Romneycare
And even that was a monumental task. One vote away in the Senate, and that one guy got rid of the single payer option for the cost of his vote. Joe Lieberman if you want to look him up, the guy who started no labels political party (without a platform).
4 years, or 3 because of Scott Brown. But we just had 2 years. And Obama had 1 year.
More people (as a percentage of the eligible voting population) voted in 2016 than 2012, and more in 2020 than in 2016.
Finger wagging at people for criticizing the current ruling party (which is sending weapons to a country that is using them to commit genocide) instead of recognizing that we live in an undemocratic system is taking it out on the wrong people. Clinton literally won more votes in the election you're saying people didn't vote hard enough in. It's spitting in the face of everyone whose votes were shat on by the Electoral College to turn around and blame the people who were disenfranchised.
I get your point, but only 48% of registered Democrats voted in 2016. 25% were abstention due to dislike of the candidate.
Unfortunately, more Democrats need to vote than Republicans, because of the disproportionate weight of Republican states’ electoral votes.
I’m not seeing where in those links it says only 48% of registered Democrats voted? If I’m missing it please point it out. The overall turnout was about 60% of eligible voters, so Democrats pulling in less than that and STILL getting more votes would be shocking.
Getting angry at voters for not voting hard enough after turnout increases every election cycle should illustrate that yelling at people to vote harder isn’t a solution, it’s a stopgap. It doesn’t change that it’s an intentionally undemocratic system, and it doesn’t prevent the exact same “the person with less votes wins” result from happening again.
Not sure who's downvoting you for asking for clarification. I think the person you responded to misinterpreted the first figure in their second link. It says among validated voters, 48% voted for Clinton and 45% for Trump.
Nowhere in those links does it say the percentage of voters by party registration that voted, and I can't find it in any other searching either. Your 60% turnout of voting-eligible population comes up all over the place though.
I don’t see the downvotes since I’m on Blahaj, that’s funny though. Sorry for reading the sources I guess? The 60% figure was straight from one of the linked articles!
Run better candidates to get more votes, it really is that simple. Blaming the voters just makes you look like a tool.
And thinking that Democrats are primarily progressive makes you look like one.
A better candidate for progressives would have been Bernie. DNC fuckery aside, he was very polarizing to half of the party.
Abby Martin has something to say about that ..
That’s great. She’s an idealist. How do we abolish the Supreme Court when we can’t even get congressional majority for more than two years every twenty?
AOC Says She'll File Articles Of Impeachment Amid SCOTUS 'Corruption Crisis'
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's threat of impeachment comes after the court ruled on Trump's immunity argument.
I’m all for it. I just have no clue how she expects to win that vote with House minority.
Well, if Biden would fucking stop dancing around the point, he could just force this. He has immunity now, after all
He doesn’t have sweeping executive powers. He has immunity from prosecution of crime related to official acts.
He can’t force a House vote. He may be able to wrongfully arrest a few Justices and get away with it.
The wrongfully arrest a few justices was the point I was pushing there
Thank you, the number of people getting this ruling wrong is too damn high.
It's not good but it's not anything close to total power.
Right. If it were, Biden would just ban felons from presidential eligibility. Easy peasy.
Mitch McConnell specifically refused to allow Obama to appoint a justice while there was an election going on.
That’s true. Had Obama appointed a Justice we’d just have 5-4 rulings instead of the 6-3 we have now. Trump’s immunity would still have passed.
Not just voter abstention, but ineffective voting too. Voting 3rd in this election is a surefire way to get trump back in office. If you wanted to stick it to Biden and get someone else, your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.
You're not voting Biden because you like him, you're voting Biden because you want to be able to vote for someone else in 2028. That is literally what is at stake here, and it can't be said loud enough or often enough.
Before the "real left" quisling trolls respond, please tell us two things... Who is the 3rd party candidate you are supporting instead? What are their chances of winning this election?
your chance was 4 years ago during the primary.
I'm sorry I didn't realize we elected presidents for 8 year terms?
Edit- just preserving this quote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Biden is very much the Democrat presumptive nominee. The time to select someone else was before he was President. The acting president is usually the nominee for their respective party. Also note that the DNC primary nomination is not the presidency.
We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before. The DNC and White House however worked very hard to shut down any criticism during the primary timeframe, refused to have debates, disburse money, etc
So if they're going to treat this full election as a preference poll on Biden, then so will the people. And his approval numbers are bad.
We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before.
Once... Over 100 years ago...
https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2009/07/a_president_denied_renominatio.html
How bad do you want to roll those odds on trump getting elected again? Also, who are you supporting for president this time round, and what do you figure their chances are of winning?
I said aborted the campaign, not lost the nomination. Usually the candidates have the good sense to bow out before that happens.
Are you talking about Truman? One guy who started to seek the presidency, after serving 1.5 terms, and then pulling out before being the presumptive nominee? I don't think history is on your side for this one.
Also, answer the questions please.
Edit: You actually said "We have absolutely aborted the campaigns of incumbent presidents before." Implying that the candidate did not win their nomination. Let's go ahead and put those goalposts back where they were initially.