HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » radius777 » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 09:37 PM
Number of posts: 3,406

Journal Archives

Repubs have intended this long before Trump.

The GOP and the conservative movement has long desired hard-right courts as a means to bypass democracy and establish minortarian rule. It's why even the 'respectable Repubs' were on board with blocking Garland and were so quick to flip flop in ramming this nominee through this time.

+1. A retrograde white minority is establishing rule

over a diverse majority for decades to come, enabled by serious imbalances (Senate, EC, USSC, etc) the founders could not have foreseen.

Agree. Breyer and Thomas are next to die or retire.

Why just have 6-3 court when it can be 8-1.

Repubs care little for democracy and have long desired control of society via the courts.

We need to fight Barrett hard, as it could blow up in their faces. Even if she's confirmed anyway it could hurt Repubs in this election and future ones, especially amongst demographics that are trending Dem.

You seem to be (a) grasping at the 'false link' narrative

to support (b) your opinion that we should not focus on it in the hearings.

They are two separate issues and you can support (b) without having to grasp at (a) which is an obtuse bothsiderist piece that debunks nothing.

Atwood's novel was based upon Charismatic Catholic cults and sects of the type Barrett was (is?) a part of - and is thus relevant as a means to attempt to understand and critique Barrett and her worldview. The exact cult is not relevant to the critique - the ideology is - which all of those groups share.

"It was a different one but the same idea." - Atwood

The Vox piece that purports to 'debunk the libs' is the typical both-siderist crap that intentionally misses the big picture.

Atwood's work is a novel, not a documentary - thus there is no need to be precise, as the fictional world/cult at the center of her novel is an amalgam of Charismatic Catholic groups (of the type Barrett was part of, which also used the 'handmaid' term). Such misogynistic religious sects were (and are) a backlash to feminism and civil rights. IOW, it's about the hateful ideology inherent to such groups - and how that could've shaped the views of a prospective Supreme Court justice such as Barrett, whose decisions could have far ranging effects on the lives of Americans of all types.

Nobody cares what the hardcore conservatives think - they aren't voting for us anyway. We care about our base as well as gettable moderates, swing voters and independents.

The archetypal swing voter is the moderate suburbanite who is pro-choice. Polls show about 2/3 of voters overall are pro-choice, including about 1/5 of Trump's 2016 voters in many states. Morning Joe (a Republican) was talking about this the other day, that he went through some of the data in swing states and there is a possibility those pro-choice voters could worry about Roe being overturned. What seemed unlikely years ago with a fairly divided court could become all too real with a hard-right 6-3 court.

The issue of choice is inextricably tied to women's rights and to the liberalism that RBG (and hopefully everyone posting on a site like this) believes in. It is a core belief that must be fought for. It is also a class issue as the anti-choice position merely equates to 'coat hangers' and backalley abortions for poor women, while rich women will still have access to safe procedures.

This does not mean we focus solely on this issue, or to the exclusion of other 'bread and butter' issues like the economy, jobs, healthcare, prescription drugs etc. We can focus on both social and economic justice while tying it all together as fighting for an America that is better for the wide spectrum of middle and working class women and men of all colors and creeds. Everything Biden and Dems have been saying recently points to this strategy.

Bush v. Gore asserted that the Constitution gives state legislatures

the final authority in selecting the slate of electors if the legislature feels the official vote can't be trusted or is somehow in doubt.

If you read the Atlantic article several ugly scenarios are possible, knowing what Trump/Barr/GOP are capable of at this point.

As the OP correctly points out, our system is rickety and the Constitution does not spell out or much less guarantee a fair election (based on the will of the people) or peaceful transition of power. Much of what we view as a 'normal election' is based upon custom.

Threat of mass boycotts of the state are imo a better tactic.

I was thinking about this. From now we should simply threaten to organize mass boycotts of any state (including any major industries and products) that would seek to undermine the will of the voters of that state. No party or politician wants to be blamed for their state and local economies being bankrupted - which is what we can easily do to them with 70+ million angry Democrats.

He's what Malcom X termed the 'House Negro'

"He loved his master more than the master loved himself... he never wanted his master's property threatened.. he was more defensive of it than the master was."

Ps. Your use of the term 'massas' is right on.

Those are legit worries, but there are many things we're doing.

1-Biden has created a 'legal war room' to deal with the issue. Both he an Hillary have asserted that this will not be like 2000 where Al Gore conceded, but we will fight to the end.
2-the Dem party has lawyers on the ground in all of these states. It should be noted that most of the rulings (Kanye, Greens, drop boxes, etc) have gone our way thus far.
3-Bloomberg's hawkfish operation, his team has gamed out all of the scenarios, and is ready to rock.
4-many voting rights activsts/groups like Stacey Abrams and Beto, working hard on this.

So we're doing all of that, but the only way it becomes an issue is if it is close. If we turnout heavily and it's not close Trump will go away as fast as he can, as he is a coward who can't take losing. Same goes for his base, who talk big but are mainly middle aged wannabe Rambos who won't do shit.

Agree, rural whites are viewed as the 'volk' of America

and the system has always catered to them from its founding, hence the imbalance the EC/Senate/USSC gives them.

It should be noted that rural PoC generally vote Dem, even in the south which is much more conservative. Rural whites aversion to Dems goes back to the issue of civil rights and associated movements (feminism, gay rights, etc) embraced by the Dem party during the 60s and onward. It actually even goes back further, when Hubert Humphrey threw down the gauntlet at the 1948 Dem convention where he called out the party's failings on race:
"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights."

Basically the civil rights issue (and how each party dealt with it) transformed the Repubs into a culturally conservative party and the Dems into a culturally liberal one.

We should always try to reach out to rural voters to hold down the GOP's margins, but realize there are far more voters we leave on the table in metro areas who Dems really don't engage properly, as the demographics can be complex.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »