Breaking Joe Biden drops out of 2024 presidential race

[Ants!]

Yeah, that’s gonna require using some cerebral torque he isn’t capable of.

Aint no "gonna", it already happened, dude. He said it and his followers eventually agreed with him rather than turn against him.

 

[Ben]

Shit, if I’m being honest… I don’t think that’s avoidable even if Trump loses. He’s just another cog in that machine, but a redundancy at this point, no different than a blue president. Either route we go, we’re stoking the flames somewhere. We’re seeing tensions mounting decades in the making, and sooner than later both China and Russia are going to become far more problematic than they already are. It’s just a matter of which one of our supposed leaders is gonna kiss ass, and which one is going to appear weaker to the other.

This global temperature is so ridiculous right now, dude. That’s why I’m dead set on the perseverance aspect of our country… because I’ve already resigned myself to believe that it’s going to get worse before it gets better, and if we don’t band together now and prepare to pull each other through it, we might as well say fuck it and let whatever happens happen. Those are really the only two options I see us having, and I dunno about you… but I’m not gonna tell you “you’re right, we’re doomed” and not at least try to convince myself and others to not let the fear take control. Fear is the biggest weapon they have to use against us regular people, if we take that away from them… what do they have? They’ll still try bullshit, but, when you have a population that you know doesn’t fear you… you’re going to second guess a lot of things you wouldn’t otherwise.

I don't entirely jive with this. Yes, it might be so that global tension is reaching a boiling point and we're going to see Russia/China/North Korea pull some shit, but I'd say they're guaranteed to try something within 4 years if Trump wins. Because I don't think he'd do anything to try to stop them, and/or even enable them.

With literally any other sane president (blue or red) who doesn't fancy himself as a dictator, the US stands as a big "fuck around and find out" to keep those antagonistic countries in line. If they think they've got to fight against the US they're going to think real hard about whether that's worth it, even just based on the potential for mutual destruction. If they don't think they've got to fight against the US, everything becomes waaaaaay easier to accomplish.

So yeah, we may "stoke the flames" of those countries with a blue president, but it's going to culminate in them sitting on their hands and looking sour like it has for decades. If we've got a deep-red president like Trump, it's going to embolden them and invite that WWIII moment. Probably with him pretending to 'negotiate' that they leave America alone as long as we don't stop them, and he'll probably spin that into "You need me to stay as President indefinitely so those countries don't come attack HERE." And at that point he'll just hand down the title to his son and perpetuate it, turning the US into a monarchy.

There's not a whole lot of global optimism, given tension between countries and the worsening climate crisis, but there's absolutely a different outcome if anyone but Trump (or his ilk) gets the presidency.

 

[MC74]

I completely get the reasons people have to be pessimistic, but, we just can’t let a guy like that win. Even if it’s just 4 more years, we can’t let that define us.

Oh, but it does define humanity since there are people stupid enough to worship at his feet, and those who would accept fascism with open arms.

Not all of us, mind you, but I tell you, the cult mentality is scary.

 

[Smacktard]

Don’t think of it as downplaying him, think of it as me saying that we’re downplaying our own democracy’s ability to persevere through threats larger and more dangerous than him. I can’t help but see people like him as the same as that one random drunk guy at a party that you’d egg on to see if he can actually crash through the folding table like Mick Foley OR if he’d take that last shot and pass out in the corner only to be ignored for the rest of the night. If we fan the flames, he’s fucking up the wings and pizza for everybody. If we keep our wits about us, prevent him from entering office again or kneecap him as we did during his first term if he happens to get there anyway, we’ll survive like we did back then. He’s only as strong as we allow him to become, both in our minds and at the ballot box.

Call it cheesy, but I just refuse to accept that we’re gonna “let” one clown or a small group of ‘em ruin everything we’ve kept (relatively) intact all these years. I have more faith in us as a people than that.

mark I genuinely think your entire post I'm quoting here is literally this:

 

[Mark]

Aint no "gonna", it already happened, dude. He said it and his followers eventually agreed with him rather than turn against him.

This is the roughest part about politics for me… I can’t seem to keep up.

I don't entirely jive with this. Yes, it might be so that global tension is reaching a boiling point and we're going to see Russia/China/North Korea pull some shit, but I'd say they're guaranteed to try something within 4 years if Trump wins. Because I don't think he'd do anything to try to stop them, and/or even enable them.

With literally any other sane president (blue or red) who doesn't fancy himself as a dictator, the US stands as a big "fuck around and find out" to keep those antagonistic countries in line. If they think they've got to fight against the US they're going to think real hard about whether that's worth it, even just based on the potential for mutual destruction. If they don't think they've got to fight against the US, everything becomes waaaaaay easier to accomplish.

So yeah, we may "stoke the flames" of those countries with a blue president, but it's going to culminate in them sitting on their hands and looking sour like it has for decades. If we've got a deep-red president like Trump, it's going to embolden them and invite that WWIII moment. Probably with him pretending to 'negotiate' that they leave America alone as long as we don't stop them, and he'll probably spin that into "You need me to stay as President indefinitely so those countries don't come attack HERE." And at that point he'll just hand down the title to his son and perpetuate it, turning the US into a monarchy.

There's not a whole lot of global optimism, given tension between countries and the worsening climate crisis, but there's absolutely a different outcome if anyone but Trump (or his ilk) gets the presidency.

I used to think it was dependent on who was in office, especially considering what we saw post-9/11, that was really the point where we were old enough to begin comprehending what was going on in the grand scheme of things. However, in recent years, it just seems people are at that point where there’s just that insatiable lust for conflict… and that is what’s causing acts to appear more brazen. The problem with the fact that they’ve sat on their hands for so long is that they’re past the point of doing that now, and they’re acting on their wishes… look at Russia and Israel. Years and years of stalemate, and years and years of sitting at that tipping point, and now we’re seeing substantive action. Do I want this to be true? Absolutely not. I don’t derive anything out of saying that I think war is inevitable, I just have a “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” mentality.

mark I genuinely think your entire post I'm quoting here is literally this:
View attachment 18683

I won’t argue that one bit. It’s no secret that I’ve seen some shit, and it’s no secret I’m a bit jaded and maybe a little nihilistic because of it, but would you rather hear “we got this, we just gotta stick together” or “fuck… we doomed” from someone with my perspective? I’m biased, but I’d go with the former. By no means do I think “this is fine” in a passive manner, though… don’t mistake that. I’m guilty of having more faith in people to do the right thing when presented with a moral choice than I probably should, but I also think when push comes to shove, we’ll make it through as long as we believe we can.

 

[MC74]

I won’t argue that one bit. It’s no secret that I’ve seen some shit, and it’s no secret I’m a bit jaded and maybe a little nihilistic because of it, but would you rather hear “we got this, we just gotta stick together” or “fuck… we doomed” from someone with my perspective? I’m biased, but I’d go with the former. By no means do I think “this is fine” in a passive manner, though… don’t mistake that. I’m guilty of having more faith in people to do the right thing when presented with a moral choice than I probably should, but I also think when push comes to shove, we’ll make it through as long as we believe we can.

I'm on the opposite end, where my trust issues and years of seeing people doing/supporting some of the worst shit imaginable have caused me to not have much trust in people to do the right thing.

Prime example being how people conducted themselves during the pandemic. The poor responses in the face of an emergency, the panic buying, people getting up in arms over the emergency protocols & such, etc....

That's not to say I don't believe we can't push through it. Humans have always pulled through some of the worst shit imaginable, but the whole point is it's still the kind of scenario you want to avoid at all costs because of how damaging & lasting the effects are. Not to mention years of progress being undone that we worked so hard to achieve.

That's what infuriates me to no end, Mark. This, and the fact the fact that there are people dumb enough to allow this shit to happen again. How many people are we gonna have suffer before enough is enough? Because I'm fucking sick of it. I want the world to be a better place, damnit, not have it set on fire again.

 

[Mark]

I'm on the opposite end, where my trust issues and years of seeing people doing/supporting some of the worst shit imaginable have caused me to not have much trust in people to do the right thing.

I’m not gonna say you’re wrong for feeling that way, because I myself have just learned within the last year that even an hour drive time can make a total difference in the type of rhetoric and behavior you encounter.

Prime example being how people conducted themselves during the pandemic. The poor responses in the face of an emergency, the panic buying, people getting up in arms over the emergency protocols & such, etc....

The pandemic was a weird demonstration here, because when the people decided it was over, no amount of government intervention could help. After a while, people here just got fed up with it, and started doing their own thing.

That's not to say I don't believe we can't push through it. Humans have always pulled through some of the worst shit imaginable, but the whole point is it's still the kind of scenario you want to avoid at all costs because of how damaging & lasting the effects are. Not to mention years of progress being undone that we worked so hard to achieve.

Absolutely, and I’m all for avoiding it if we can. I just don’t want to see everyone lose hope that, if we can’t, that everything is going to be undone. There might be efforts, sure, but I don’t think people are going to be game for going backwards. Even the ones that seem like they want to go backwards in time, or even the ones that are confronted with the potential of that kind of regression and cool with it… when they actually come face to face with the people it’ll affect, they’ll reconsider their stance. Right now? It’s all propaganda on the television and internet to them. As soon as it’s in their homes, in their families, and in their faces… it’ll be a whole different scenario. As soon as it comes to Americans versus China or Russia, suddenly your redneck uncle Clem isn’t gonna give two shits if your cousin is trans.

I knew someone who became what we refer to as “transplants”… younger, educated white people from out of state with the prospect of a job in the city. She moved from a pretty rural area, and was a hardcore conservative. She didn’t really research the neighborhood she was buying a house in before she moved, and quickly learned that despite living in a modern reno, that deal she caught came with a cost. She used to ask me a million and one questions about whether or not to be friendly with the neighbors, or if it was okay to drive with the windows down, etc. One day, she caught a flat on I-95 heading to work, and as hundreds of cars passed her… one stopped. A teenage black kid with dreads on his own way to work, he walked up to her while she was on the phone with me and she immediately panicked. You know why. I told her just to go ahead and crack the window, and see what he says. “Need some help, miss?” That was that, he helped her swap to her spare, and sent her on her way. All she could do was recollect all the times she had been scared of that very moment happening, and when it did, being helped instead of robbed threw her off.

Now, I’m not naive enough to think that everyone is going to flip like a light switch if and when WWIII kicks off, but, we see how opportunistic that bunch in particular is. When they realize that it’s in their best interests to return to the rest of the “herd” as they call it, because our strength is in our numbers, as diverse as they may be, that’s when I think we’ll see some substantial change. Think back to 9/11… sure, the Islamic community had an extremely rough way to go, but do you remember the unity that happened immediately after that? When people from all walks of lives were victims, suddenly it didn’t matter what color you were or what your preferences or pronouns were. The people that were prejudice towards all Islamics back then? They’re like the MAGA people now, just running around crazed by the fear instilled in them by ignorance. As soon as they’re shown otherwise, because there are suddenly real, tangible threats to their freedom and not just people with different lives than them… that’ll be a turning point for that uncle Clem guy. Suddenly, he won’t give a shit if two dudes are in a relationship, or a black girl is married to a white guy, or whatever flavor of hate we’re on that week when it all goes to shit.

That's what infuriates me to no end, Mark. This, and the fact the fact that there are people dumb enough to allow this shit to happen again. How many people are we gonna have suffer before enough is enough? Because I'm fucking sick of it. I want the world to be a better place, damnit, not have it set on fire again.

You don’t have to convince me of that. I’ve known nothing but the worst and rarely the best of human nature in my little corner of the world, but those people that still manage to do good can make up for years of bad in a split second, that’s the power of good. We just gotta chip away at it, one day, one changed mindset at a time. If you can give one person hope, and then that person can give the next two people hope, and so on… we might be able to get through the worst case scenario a lot better than if we just sit around waiting for the end.

 

[Smacktard]

So it seems like Reps have been ramping up attacks on Kamala over her handling of the border crisis. Democrats, for their part, are just gaslighting people into thinking Kamala never had anything to do with the border, which is just fucking mindboggling to me. News orgs are supporting this lie as well.

FWIW, the NPR subreddit is pretty good for pushing back on this sort of disinformation. What happens from what I've seen is that astroturfing and bots boost stories/threads attacking NPR coverage, misconstruing it, and viewers push back on this misinformation in the comments. So the threads might have lots of upvotes, but the comments section is full of people being like "well this is actually bullshit".

Point in case:

 

[Ants!]

Man that is the wrong tactic. Just say what your new plan on the issue is and keep reminding people that there was a deal to fix it but Trump tanked it for purely political reasons. She needs to hammer that until the mainstream starts saying it for her.

 

[Ants!]

Also if he ever dares utter the words "migrant crime" at a debate, throw it in his face how many felonies he has now.

 

[Smacktard]

Man that is the wrong tactic. Just say what your new plan on the issue is and keep reminding people that there was a deal to fix it but Trump tanked it for purely political reasons. She needs to hammer that until the mainstream starts saying it for her.

EXACTLY. I know illegal border crossings are not a strong point of Biden's admin, but lying about your handling of it is a shitty approach. Rethink it or push back, but don't try to convince people that the sky is green. It's offensive and condescending.

 

[Ants!]

Also makes it harder to take the moral high ground on lying. Don't share in that weakness.

 

[VashTheStampede]

So it seems like Reps have been ramping up attacks on Kamala over her handling of the border crisis. Democrats, for their part, are just gaslighting people into thinking Kamala never had anything to do with the border, which is just fucking mindboggling to me. News orgs are supporting this lie as well.

I was under the impression that Kamala's purview regarding "the border" was that she was the lead solely when it comes to diplomatic tactics to address root causes of migration from 3 specific countries. Which don't even include Mexico.

The Republicans have labeled her the "border czar" and are holding her responsible for the "border crisis".

Who is doing the gaslighting and lying here?

Whether or not the "border crisis" even exists is a whole other conversation.

 

[VashTheStampede]

Kamala Harris Wasn't the ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Did

Harris focused on improving conditions in Central America's Northern Triangle and addressing root causes of migration

time.com

This is where I'm finding information that backs up the impression I was under.

But maybe that's more of that lying liberal media.

 

[Smacktard]

I was under the impression that Kamala's purview regarding "the border" was that she was the lead solely when it comes to diplomatic tactics to address root causes of migration from 3 specific countries. Which don't even include Mexico.

The Republicans have labeled her the "border czar" and are holding her responsible for the "border crisis".

Who is doing the gaslighting and lying here?

Whether or not the "border crisis" even exists is a whole other conversation.

This article addresses the "lying liberal media" I think you're sarcastically referring to:

FACT CHECK: Harris was Biden’s second 'border czar,' despite recent media claims

(The Center Square) – As Vice President Kamala Harris began campaigning to become the next Democratic presidential nominee, media outlets started claiming she was never President Joe Biden’s border czar.

www.kpvi.com

Relevant quote from another article reference therein:

Biden said during an immigration meeting at the White House that he had asked Harris to lead the administration's efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle — El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, countries that will "need help stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border."

(And source for the above: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...coordination-efforts-southern-border-n1261952 )

So yes, liberal media has changed their tune on Harris as the "border czar" as well since it became politically expedient to attack her on it.

 

[Smacktard]

FWIW the articles of impeachment against Kamala for the border situation is completely bullshit too since the "czar" title is not really an official title

 

[VashTheStampede]

This article addresses the "lying liberal media" I think you're sarcastically referring to:

FACT CHECK: Harris was Biden’s second 'border czar,' despite recent media claims

(The Center Square) – As Vice President Kamala Harris began campaigning to become the next Democratic presidential nominee, media outlets started claiming she was never President Joe Biden’s border czar.

www.kpvi.com

I do find it interesting that this station is owned by a company founded by Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker and subsequently purchased by another evangelical corporation (Boy does THAT term wig me out).

So I'd dig deeper into these claims and sources if I had the time. At a quick glance I saw their sources as Axios (fact checked by twitter???) so we're just pitting conservative sources against liberal sources here looks like.

But I cannot argue with the article on a surface level. Could be legit.

Relevant quote from another article reference therein:

(And source for the above: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...coordination-efforts-southern-border-n1261952 )

So yes, liberal media has changed their tune on Harris as the "border czar" as well since it became politically expedient to attack her on it.

This article doesn't back up anything in the first one other than I was wrong about Mexico not being involved.

 

[Smacktard]

So I'd dig deeper into these claims and sources if I had the time. At a quick glance I saw their sources as Axios (fact checked by twitter???)

Twitter fact checks are actually pretty good tbh. They do help to expose bullshit, propaganda, and lies.

But also, the point isn't that it was fact checked by Twitter -- the point is that the recent Axios article was compared to an older Axios article that referred to Kamala as the border czar.

so we're just pitting conservative sources against liberal sources here looks like.

More like putting liberal sources against those same exact liberal sources.

This article doesn't back up anything in the first one other than I was wrong about Mexico not being involved.

Yeah, it did involve Mexico. And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make -- that someone put in charge of "curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration" is not actually a border czar because semantics?

 

[VashTheStampede]

Yeah, it did involve Mexico. And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make -- that someone put in charge of "curbing the current flow of migrants and implementing a long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of migration" is not actually a border czar because semantics?

Yo I'm gonna be 100% honest, my first time clicking the NBC News link, I didn't see the little "Continue Reading" tab thing because of pop-ups and thought it was just one of those news snippets they shove out with no real content.

That's my bad

 

[Ancle Suck]

Yo I'm gonna be 100% honest, my first time clicking the NBC News link, I didn't see the little "Continue Reading" tab thing because of pop-ups and thought it was just one of those news snippets they shove out with no real content.

That's my bad

Nah that's modern day stupid website's bad.

 

[Smacktard]

Yo I'm gonna be 100% honest, my first time clicking the NBC News link, I didn't see the little "Continue Reading" tab thing because of pop-ups and thought it was just one of those news snippets they shove out with no real content.

That's my bad

Haha alright fair enough, I've definitely done the same thing. It's easy to miss stuff like that when 50% of an article is ads

 

[VashTheStampede]

Nah that's modern day stupid website's bad.

Well yeah but OTOH I know better that he wouldn't have linked to a dumbass thing like that.

I am shamed

 

[Smacktard]

I know better that he wouldn't have linked to a dumbass thing like that.

Bold assumption to make that I wouldn't link something dumbass

 

[Ancle Suck]

Well the midwest has certainly made a change in their feelings:

 

[VashTheStampede]

Toss Tim Walz on that ticket and let him speak to people in those states and we can be done with the celebrity president shit

 

[dimmerwit]

That Michigan number sums to 104, so I'm guessing that 57 is too high.

 

[Ancle Suck]

That Michigan number sums to 104, so I'm guessing that 57 is too high.

That's favorability, not voting.

57% of people in Michigan think of her favorably, as compared to only 47% for Trump. There's overlap.

 

[dimmerwit]

Yeah, you're right, but I also turned out to be unintentionally right. Harris was also at 47% in that poll, not 57%.

 

[Ancle Suck]

Yeah, you're right, but I also turned out to be unintentionally right. Harris was also at 47% in that poll, not 57%.

Still a huge uptick from Biden's level of underwaterness

 

[dimmerwit]

Definitely. Biden was at 39% in that Michigan poll and having a quick look at the others he's high single-digits lower in all of them.

JD Vance could only manage 36%!

 

[Ancle Suck]

Definitely. Biden was at 39% in that Michigan poll and having a quick look at the others he's high single-digits lower in all of them.

JD Vance could only manage 36%!

JD Vance has resulted in the Democrats starting to say the Republican ticket is "weird" so he's got that going for him.

 

[Ancle Suck]

Also Trump was advised to take literally anyone else but his grown ass failsons Donald Jr. and Eric told him to go with Vance lol.

 

[VashTheStampede]

JD Vance has resulted in the Democrats starting to say the Republican ticket is "weird" so he's got that going for him.

That was Kamala's plan 4 years ago if she won the nomination, specifically if she would debate Trump. I thought it was silly then and was hoping she wouldn't go that route.

It actually seems to be pretty effective so far. So I was wrong there.

 

[VashTheStampede]

Well the midwest has certainly made a change in their feelings:

That image is apparently fake.

Think I'm gonna mute this Cole guy from my feed, seems to be kinda grifty.

Real poll:

 

[Ancle Suck]

That image is apparently fake.

Think I'm gonna mute this Cole guy from my feed, seems to be kinda grifty.

Real poll:

View attachment 18724

Interesting. The real one isn't much better for Trump and co though. Only slight not relevant in one state, well behind in one, tied in 2.

 

[Jon]

Don’t think of it as downplaying him, think of it as me saying that we’re downplaying our own democracy’s ability to persevere through threats larger and more dangerous than him. I can’t help but see people like him as the same as that one random drunk guy at a party that you’d egg on to see if he can actually crash through the folding table like Mick Foley OR if he’d take that last shot and pass out in the corner only to be ignored for the rest of the night. If we fan the flames, he’s fucking up the wings and pizza for everybody. If we keep our wits about us, prevent him from entering office again or kneecap him as we did during his first term if he happens to get there anyway, we’ll survive like we did back then. He’s only as strong as we allow him to become, both in our minds and at the ballot box.

Call it cheesy, but I just refuse to accept that we’re gonna “let” one clown or a small group of ‘em ruin everything we’ve kept (relatively) intact all these years. I have more faith in us as a people than that.

Here's the thing though...

First presidency, he had people that actually stood up to him and refused to do things. Like Generals and Pence.

This time, he's already vowed to replace everyone he can with people directly loyal to him and him alone.

The danger of giving him the benefit of the doubt is very real.

 

[Smacktard]

That image is apparently fake.

Think I'm gonna mute this Cole guy from my feed, seems to be kinda grifty.

Real poll:

View attachment 18724

It's not fake. Look at the headings. You shared a picture of two different polls. WRT Michigan, the typo was in the broadcast. The screenshot is real. Twitter fact check on his original post caught all of this btw, and even links the source for the news cast along with the actual poll results:

 

[Jon]

It's not fake. Look at the headings. You shared a picture of two different polls. WRT Michigan, the typo was in the broadcast. The screenshot is real. Twitter fact check on his original post caught all of this btw, and even links the source for the news cast along with the actual poll results:

This. The polls are showing a fairly dramatic swing.

 

[Ancle Suck]

Ah I see. Yeah, favorability and polls for elections. Having higher favorability means it's more likely her standing in the election itself will improve, especially because her ratings before were tied to Biden and now she's getting her own.

Tied or ahead in all but Wisconsin for an actual election poll is really good for her at this point.

 

[dimmerwit]

I mean, it's a start. I still don't think her polling position is amazing, but I guess the good news is that Harris has more potential upside than Biden.

The VP pick will be important, as will the debate if it happens. Hopefully JD Vance will continue to drag Trump a little bit.

 

[Ben]

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law | The White House

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. In

www.whitehouse.gov

Biden aiming for SCOTUS reform, including term limits.

Nice.

 

[dimmerwit]

The term limits proposal is one I've long thought makes sense.

Term Limits - Fix the Court

6/30/23: Most recent FTC-endorsed Supreme Court Term Limits Act introduced in Congress Why ending life tenure at the Supreme Court is good policy: When the founders were drafting the Constitution, a primary goal was to shield the judiciary from the political pressures of the day. English...

fixthecourt.com

 

[Smacktard]

The term limits proposal is one I've long thought makes sense.

Term Limits - Fix the Court

6/30/23: Most recent FTC-endorsed Supreme Court Term Limits Act introduced in Congress Why ending life tenure at the Supreme Court is good policy: When the founders were drafting the Constitution, a primary goal was to shield the judiciary from the political pressures of the day. English...

fixthecourt.com

Agreed, the current meta of nominating extremely young judges in order to control the Supreme Court for a long time needs to be nerfed.

 

[Ants!]

Not just that there needs to be some kind of accountability as well.

 

[Jon]

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law | The White House

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. In

www.whitehouse.gov

Biden aiming for SCOTUS reform, including term limits.

Nice.

Too bad that short of a sweeping super majority in November it won't happen.

Agreed, the current meta of nominating extremely young judges in order to control the Supreme Court for a long time needs to be nerfed.

Not just that there needs to be some kind of accountability as well.

Both of these are extremely accurate. We have two judges completely compromised either financially or politically. We have two judges who shouldn't even be on the bench. And another politically in the pocket of a former president.

The damage the SCOTUS has done to the country at this point is going very undervalued. Dems really should push this narrative as part of the presidential campaign because the Reps can't support freedoms and rights while the SCOTUS they've empaneled is legit striking freedoms and right down at lightspeed.

But again, short of a blue wave supermajority, Congress will never be able to right the wrongs done by this SCOTUS. And that scares me.

 

[VashTheStampede]

It's not fake. Look at the headings. You shared a picture of two different polls. WRT Michigan, the typo was in the broadcast. The screenshot is real. Twitter fact check on his original post caught all of this btw, and even links the source for the news cast along with the actual poll results:

Interesting.

At the time I posted that, Twitter fact check said it was a digitally manipulated image, and is where I got my version of the image.

 

[Ants!]

FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law | The White House

From his first day in office—and every day since then—President Biden has taken action to strengthen American democracy and protect the rule of law. In

www.whitehouse.gov

Biden aiming for SCOTUS reform, including term limits.

Nice.

This the best possible "FUCK YOU" response to all the people saying he's not fit to even finish out his term.

 

[Ants!]

Too bad that short of a sweeping super majority in November it won't happen.

Maybe. But if that ends up being the case then at least it puts the naysayers on record as having voted against it, and leaves them figuring out how to explain that to voters.

 

[Jon]

Maybe. But if that ends up being the case then at least it puts the naysayers on record as having voted against it, and leaves them figuring out how to explain that to voters.

Oh, 100%! Getting politicians on record is one way to hold them accountable to their constituents. It affects anyone not firmly planted in a seat that won't ever swing. And it shows the rest who is in Trump's pocket and who isn't.

The issue I was trying to allude to, was simply that we are at least 2 years away from making a difference in the Supreme Court. Getting all Congress on record prior to November will open the eyes, and then in 2026 mid-terms you may see some voted out if they have an unpopular opinion. Trouble is, Harris needs to win and be doing at least a passable job AND you need to find a way to force Mike Johnson to put this to vote in the House to put those members in the spotlight. Then you start the narrative framing.

I will say though, seeing Dems really point/counter-pointing Republicans the past couple weeks has been really refreshing as compared to the "keep our mouths shut" method they previously employed.

 

[MC74]

I will say though, seeing Dems really point/counter-pointing Republicans the past couple weeks has been really refreshing as compared to the "keep our mouths shut" method they previously employed.

Agreed. They know they can't afford to pussyfoot around anymore. There's too much at stake to be fucking around on these issues.