American Politics XV: Trump and '24 Already....

[San Lumen]

They are totally out of touch and states should start openly defying them.

I don't know why people are surprised a court made up of a bunch of 80-year-olds is out of touch.

its not that. One of the seats was Obama's to fill and McConnell refused to allow a vote on the nomination. Ginsburg should have retired under Obama.

[American Legionaries]

Oh boy, affirmative action. I dont see any way this could become controversial. I will be honest with you guys, I can understand why many are upset at the supreme court right now.

They are totally out of touch and states should start openly defying them.

That's called an independent judiciary, my dude.

[San Lumen]

They are totally out of touch and states should start openly defying them.

That's called an independent judiciary, my dude.

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

[Sutalia]

That's called an independent judiciary, my dude.

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

Earn your victories in the legislature, not the courts.

[San Lumen]

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

Earn your victories in the legislature, not the courts.

How will we do that when the Supreme Court kills democracy next year and ends the possibly of a Democratic president for decades to come?

Why should LGBT people have full rights in one state but not another?

[Zilam]

Earn your victories in the legislature, not the courts.

How will we do that when the Supreme Court kills democracy next year and ends the possibly of a Democratic president for decades to come?

Why should LGBT people have full rights in one state but not another?

Maybe Democracy needs to die? Why should 49.9% of the population have their conscience violated by 50.1% (on either side)?

[San Lumen]

How will we do that when the Supreme Court kills democracy next year and ends the possibly of a Democratic president for decades to come?

Why should LGBT people have full rights in one state but not another?

Maybe Democracy needs to die? Why should 49.9% of the population have their conscience violated by 50.1% (on either side)?

What system should we have instead?

[American Legionaries]

That's called an independent judiciary, my dude.

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

Democracy had it's chance to be good. It failed.

[San Lumen]

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

Democracy had it's chance to be good. It failed.

Yeah because you can't have one thing and the heck with everything else.

[American Legionaries]

Democracy had it's chance to be good. It failed.

Yeah because you can't have one thing and the heck with everything else.

Like the gay people, why should I have full rights in one state, but not another?

[San Lumen]

Yeah because you can't have one thing and the heck with everything else.

Like the gay people, why should I have full rights in one state, but not another?

So you want me to have no rights so you can have unlimited access to your pet item?

[American Legionaries]

Like the gay people, why should I have full rights in one state, but not another?

So you want me to have no rights so you can have unlimited access to your pet item?

Turnabout is fair play, or so I've heard.

[San Lumen]

So you want me to have no rights so you can have unlimited access to your pet item?

Turnabout is fair play, or so I've heard.

'That's not a trade off the LGBT community or any other group should have to make.

[American Legionaries]

Turnabout is fair play, or so I've heard.

'That's not a trade off the LGBT community or any other group should have to make.

And yet you want me to make it for your precious democracy.

[The Grand World Order]

And when the court kills democracy next year and repeals same sex marriage and adoption at some point you'll be jumping for joy as your dream of a one party state will become reality.

That's particularly rich coming from someone who advocates barring duly elected leaders from office because they're not cool progressivist club members. If you want to kill people's choice out of self interest, that's fine, just don't chastise others for adopting similar outlooks.

I've noticed this brand of histrionics that progressives employ when they don't get their way on things. It's not them losing a legislative battle, it's "the end of democracy!" or "Conservatives are sewing division across the land!" until they get everything. Gun control's a particularly good demonstrator of this, where every five to ten years or so, progressives fire up their teary anime eyes and go "let's compromise? Pwease uwu you get to keep the rest of your gun rights just compromise with us on this" only to repeat the whole thing a little while later. LGBTQ stuff is another example of the progressivist slippery slope, where it went from "who cares what people do in the privacy of their home, love is love" to "you must be OK with us bringing our bedroom into the streets and your kids' school, also if you fuck up my pronouns I'll have your entire life ruined." They truly never stop coming, and if you try to oppose it, you're a neo-nazi bigot who is "causing division," "killing democracy," et cetera.

[Zilam]

Maybe Democracy needs to die? Why should 49.9% of the population have their conscience violated by 50.1% (on either side)?

What system should we have instead?

Mutually beneficial and consensual interactions with each other should the basis of whatever system comes next. But if I don't consent to someone's sinful behaviors, and someone doesn't consent to my religious based intolerance, why should we be forced to work together? Or why should one of us get to decide what the other is able to do and believe? Is that really a just system?

[Platoon of Peace]

Turnabout is fair play, or so I've heard.

'That's not a trade off the LGBT community or any other group should have to make.

Question: Why do you want other people to make sacrifices for your "greater good" when you stand unwilling to make these same sacrifices for others? And if you respond with "but they kill democracy" I am going to view that argument as irrelevant.

[Luna Amore]

The scales have tipped back into the Republican's favor overall according to 538:

Which is a bit surprising since the Senate was 71-29 in the Democrats favor a little over a month ago.

[Platoon of Peace]

The scales have tipped back into the Republican's favor overall according to 538:

(Image)

Which is a bit surprising since the Senate was 71-29 in the Democrats favor a little over a month ago.

OH MY GOD IT'S CALLED 538 BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES I'M SO STUPID!

But yeah, kinda unsurprising, considering how the dems have been bumbling around a bit at the end of the race.

[Forsher]

Oh boy, affirmative action. I dont see any way this could become controversial. I will be honest with you guys, I can understand why many are upset at the supreme court right now.

They are totally out of touch and states should start openly defying them.

I'm not sure SCOTUS is out of touch vis a vis affirmative action, and neither's 538:

For example, a Washington Post/Schar School poll conducted Oct. 7-10 found that near-identical shares of Americans supported a Supreme Court ruling “banning colleges and universities from considering a student’s race and ethnicity when making decisions about student admissions” (63 percent), and thought programs that promote racial diversity in higher education are a good thing (64 percent). This is a great example of one of the central tensions in how Americans think about race-conscious admissions: Many people are uncomfortable with the concept of singling out racial minorities for special treatment if it means other students will have to meet a higher standard, even though they also want universities to have racially diverse student bodies.

63% * 9 = 5.67, to be clear

But we must emphasise that 538 isn't sure because they go on to say:

Americans’ ambivalence about affirmative action is strong enough that a small tweak in question wording can result in a very different result. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2017 found that a sizable majority (71 percent) of Americans said that “affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses” are a good thing. Of course, this number might have changed over the past few years, but it suggests that reminding respondents about the aims of affirmative action programs — rather than simply telling them how race-conscious admissions works, as the Washington Post/Schar School poll did — may change the way people think about the concept.

However, I don't really agree with their interpretation of a survey that tried to test this theory (that phrasing results in association reversal), but you can read the article for yourself.

[Shrillland]

Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania House assaulted after two acts of vandalism in past three weeks, all considered politically motivated

Marc Victor, Libertarian AZ Senate candidate, drops out and endorses Masters

[Corrian]

The scales have tipped back into the Republican's favor overall according to 538:

(Image)

Which is a bit surprising since the Senate was 71-29 in the Democrats favor a little over a month ago.

OH MY GOD IT'S CALLED 538 BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES I'M SO STUPID!

But yeah, kinda unsurprising, considering how the dems have been bumbling around a bit at the end of the race.

Don't Dems have a habit of doing this?

[Shrillland]

OH MY GOD IT'S CALLED 538 BECAUSE OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES I'M SO STUPID!

But yeah, kinda unsurprising, considering how the dems have been bumbling around a bit at the end of the race.

Don't Dems have a habit of doing this?

They do, but this time around it's more due to not being quick enough on the political turnabout. That and many problems are coming from the individual candidates rather than the party as a whole.

[Forsher]

The scales have tipped back into the Republican's favor overall according to 538:

(Image)

Which is a bit surprising since the Senate was 71-29 in the Democrats favor a little over a month ago.

Yes and no.

It's surprising in the sense that you'd expect that they'd build on a position of strength... a sort of snowball effect. On the other hand, the way I understand what Silver says about their deluxe model, the Republican position was always going to strengthen because the model required such an outcome. And you can see that something like that is happening by looking to their polls only model:



Of course, things were a lot better for the Democrats a month ago in this model, too. 538 currently understands the whole event as a temporary Dobbs induced poll bump and if that's correct, then it turns out that you can't really leverage abortion as a Democrat... making a further mockery of the "Democrats should've done more" narrative.

[The Dank Republic]

Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania House assaulted after two acts of vandalism in past three weeks, all considered politically motivated

I'm beginning to see a pattern here that i'm not so sure that I like