General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone who helped bigots and fascists capture the Supreme Court.
This includes, but is not limited to:
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
-misanthroptimist
(1,824 posts)He stole one from Obama.
He stole one from Biden.
Without those thefts, Republicans would be 4-5 on the Court instead of 6-3.
Be mad at him instead.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)Last edited Sat May 2, 2026, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
and no initial erosion of the Voting Rights Act.
If Hillary Clinton had won, there would be no Neil Gorsuch, no Brett Kavanaugh, no Amy Coney Barrett, and no absolute demolition of the Voting Rights Act.
As for the rest who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kamala Harris despite what was anticipated by Project 2025 and then came to pass, the heartiest of all "FUCK YOUs" on the general principle that we have a civic and moral duty to reduce harm to the marginalized among us.
Polybius
(22,085 posts)Alito and Roberts were appointed in Bush's second term. If Gore wins in 2000, it's a stretch to think we win four Presidential elections in a row.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)by violating the U.S. constitution's sections that give the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election to the elected U.S. House of Representatives and NOT 5 unelected, highly partisan GOP SCOTUS judges and the states the authority to conduct elections which is what the state of Florida was doing in 2000, our country would not now be on the brink of becoming a Nazi dictatorship. 160,000 legally cast votes located in the largest and most heavily democratic voting counties in Florida sit uncounted in the Florida archives as I type this post.
Nader certainly played a crucial role with his big lie that there were no differences between Al Gore and the Rehnquist 5 appointed Bush and with the GOP funded ad campaign that Nader ran in crucial battle ground states like Florida. This is what made it possible for Bush to get close enough in Florida to have his little brother Jeb and campaign co-chair Harris refuse to enforce Florida election law that the Rehnquist 5 then rubberstamped which caused 160,000 legally cast Florida votes in democratic voting counties to not be counted..
Let's also not forget that Jill Stein siphoned off enough crucial democratic votes from Hilary in 2016 and Kamala in 2024 with the same Nader big lie to put Trump in the White House.
It's long past due to hold the Rehnquist 5, Nader and iIll Stein accountable for what they've done to our country.
Polybius
(22,085 posts)
debsy
(1,025 posts)Polybius
(22,085 posts)But Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away on September 18, 2020. Four months and two days before Biden. Sorta a stretch to call it a steal, but I totally get your point.
-misanthroptimist
(1,824 posts)debsy
(1,025 posts)McConnell and Trump were laser-focused on the lower courts as well, stacking the wider judiciary with 226 right-wing justices in just four years, rivaling the appellate appointment count of two-term presidents.
Jack Valentino
(5,230 posts)during the last year of his second term based on the argument that
"the SC nomination should be made by the winner of the next presidential election"--
but when ANOTHER opening occurred in the last few month's of Trump's first term,
that rule no longer applied, and they made a different argument
about "who controls the U.S. Senate"--- and rushed it through in the last moments
before ANOTHER presidential election, which Joe Biden WON---
(by their 2016 arguments about SC openings and presidential elections,
that should have been BIDEN'S Supreme Court seat to fill--)
I realize that YOU know this well,
but am only stating it for those who might not know or remember
MichMan
(17,341 posts)McConnell was under no obligation to approve any nominee.
Jack Valentino
(5,230 posts)when we control the U.S. Senate--- regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says about it---
Right ??
I'm good with that policy. I'm still not good with
apologists for Republican hypocrisies.... whoever they may be
MichMan
(17,341 posts)McConnell was wrong to not give him one.
Jack Valentino
(5,230 posts)--- whichever party controls the Senate now decides whether Supreme Court nominations will be acted upon---- and if Democrats retake the Senate, and Trump has the chance to fill any SC openings in the last part of his term, the answer should be "no dice, we won't even have hearings--- since that is what you Republicans did not do with President Obama's Garland nomination."
And if a Democratic Senate leader does differently, I will be out for his political blood !!!!
debsy
(1,025 posts)Least we not forget, he rammed through Amy Coney Barrett 6 weeks before an election which was a180 degree spin from his position on Merrick Garland
Cha
(320,349 posts)
karynnj
(61,075 posts)I don't think there was any precedent to not hold hearing with most of year left in Obama's term. Not to mention, Obama was honoring split government by making a centrist pick.
However, Coney Barrett exposed the rank hypocrisy by being very quickly nominated, given a hearing and confirmed.
It boiled down to McConnell doing whatever he had the power to do.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,328 posts)... and the fundraising he kicked off that got businessmen first, statesmen last elected to the House and creeped into the Senate.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)I’m not sure you would like that list.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)And no one has been added to the court during Trump’s second term, whereas fully half of the current MAGA majority predates Trump’s first term.
Transforming the court to its current corrupt state has been a decades long project, not just the result of Trump’s ascension to the White House (although he clearly accelerated it, with help from McConnell).
lapucelle
(21,116 posts) 
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)Emphasis added ... cherry picked paragraphs to stick to copyright rules. It is well worth reading the whole thing (which only has a few more paragraphs I had to snip out.)
Edit to clarify my point: the 2024 voters referenced in the OP are RESPONSIBLE in large part for the 2nd TSF administration, which has weaponized the SC in new ways. Some of the horrible decisions issued by this SC term may have been issued eventually anyway, but some quite possibly would never have made it to the SC without TSF administration submitting them.
The memos date to 2016, when a majority of justices voted to bypass the lower courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. At the time, it was an unprecedented use of the Court’s shadow docket. Also known as the emergency docket, the shadow docket refers to applications that seek action from the Supreme Court before the case is decided on the merits. Historically, its use was generally limited to procedural issues or requests to block serious, irreparable harms, such as a pending execution. But the Court’s use of the shadow docket shifted with the Court’s 2016 climate policy ruling, which skipped the normal litigation process in order to block a national policy.
Since then, the shadow docket’s use has exploded in both frequency and impact. The second Trump administration has filed a record number of shadow docket applications and has won 80 percent of the time. In the vast majority of these rulings, the Court has provided little or no reasoning for its decision.
... (snip) ...
Significantly, Roberts’s reasoning is also wholly inconsistent with how he and other conservative members of the Court have been assessing irreparable harm during the second Trump administration. Over the past year, the Court has repeatedly issued stays requested by the Trump administration where there was no apparent irreparable harm to the government, other than the generalized harm it faces from any delay in implementing a desired policy. For instance, the Court, through its shadow docket, allowed mass layoffs at the Education Department, racial profiling in immigration sweeps, and the termination of legal immigration status for hundreds of thousands of people.
... (snip) ...
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Which is why I questioned the OP’s strange, inconsistent criteria for earning a hearty “FUCK YOU”.
While Trump and McConnell deserve a generous portion of the blame, the genesis of this corrupt, hyper-partisan court goes back decades.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)I agree with the OP, for many reasons beyond the SC decisions issued during this administration.
To put it another way, even if the published rationale for a conclusion is not logically sound, that doesn't automatically make the stated conclusion incorrect. (and due to what I posted, I wouldn't even say the OPs stated rationale is logically unsound, but I can also see that your point somewhat weakens it).
That hearty 'FUCK YOU' to those mentioned in the OP, is deserved for SO MANY REASONS beyond the Supreme Court.
(Oh and let's not forget - there is an active push to get one or more of the oldest SC justices to retire in time for this corrupt crowd to push through yet another appointment. And there is no guarantee that we will capture the Senate in the 2026 election.)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Blaming a certain subset of 2024 voters for the current damage this SCOTUS is causing is simply inaccurate.
Pointing the finger at that subset of voters for the damage the current administration has done is only partially accurate, as a wider net must be cast to fully capture all those responsible for the debacle of the 2024 Democratic presidential campaign.
But that’s not the topic of this thread; it’s who deserves a hearty “FUCK YOU” for enabling the current MAGA majority on the court.
Frankly, I prefer to look for solutions rather than point fingers, and the only feasible solution I can see is to elect enough courageous democrats (including a president in 2028, but also critically, senators in 2026 who will still be in office in 2029) who will kill the filibuster and expand the court.
Court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, is the only way, short of amending the constitution, to neutralize the current MAGA majority and begin the restoration of lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era.
Bobstandard
(2,362 posts)Must every OP meet yours?
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)All of us continue to live with the consequences of their actions a quarter of a century later.
It's pretty clear at this point that, for some, Democrats will never be good enough to actually vote for.
Call them out. Shame them. Let them know that they are among those who bear the blame.
Let them know that they need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Bobstandard
(2,362 posts)
betsuni
(29,249 posts)shouldn't make anyone here touchy!
Cha
(320,349 posts)wrong. 
Thank you! 
muriel_volestrangler
(106,517 posts)Yes, they were appointed in his 2nd term, but if he hadn't got in in 2000, he wouldn't have won in 2004, frankly. History would have been quite different.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)This term isn't over yet so it's possible Trump gets more appointments.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Clarence and Alito could retire, and Trump could appoint Barron and Melania to take their places, but the MAGA majority would remain 6-3.
Any new appointments to SCOTUS during Trump’s second term won’t make a bit of difference in the long run, as long as enough courageous democrats are elected so the court is expanded in 2029.
That is why court expansion, and killing the filibuster to do so, must be Democrats #1 priority moving forward. (Reminder: Dems can walk and chew gum, so while court expansion must be priority #1, protecting the rights and wellbeing of Americans is the assumed foundation for everything Dems pursue in power).
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)who ever is appointed can be there for 30-40 years. And if Harris were President, the majority could ultimately shift. The longer a republican is in the White House the longer it will until the majority can shift. So yes, any appointments Trump makes this term make a lot of difference in the long term. So F**K anyone who didn't vote for Harris in 24!!!
Crunchy Frog
(28,298 posts)Which would be avoided if a Dem makes that appointment.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)And once the court is expanded (to at least 13, preferably 15 seats) in 2029, we will be looking at a 7-6, or preferably 9-6 liberal majority, so whoever is appointed to the court in the next two years can have decades of collecting a paycheck without any meaningful power.
If a Dem had won in 2024, Clarence and Alito would have just delayed their retirement, or would have retired in the lame duck period after the election and before inauguration day.
Like I said, as long as Dems #1 priority is court expansion in 2029, then it truly doesn’t matter who Trump gets to appoint in the next two years (and if Dems retake the senate, he’s only got about 7 months to make any more appointments).
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)The Supreme Court is a long term issue and there is no guarantee that it can be expanded in the future. I refuse to make excuses for anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24, Clinton in 16, Kerry in 04 and Gore in 2000. They fucked the country.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)And the only viable solution is to expand the court.
Identifying candidates who support court expansion (and killing the filibuster to do so), and then working to get them elected and is a far better use of time and resources IMO.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)But all options need to be considered. Not just one that’s a longshot at best. That’s just unrealistic.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Especially compared to impeachment, which has a much higher threshold.
All it takes for expansion is a simple majority and the courage to get it done.
What other options besides impeachment do you see as more feasible than expansion?
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)And it will take 60 votes. That assumes democrats take the house, the Senate and the White House,
Plus it still doesn’t excuse those who refused to vote for Clinton and Harris.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)On January 3, 2029, at the commencement of the new congress, the senate can change its rules, and abolish the filibuster, or create restrictions on its use (no more emailing the clerk with intent to filibuster to block legislation).
Also, at any time (if they know they have the 51 votes) a courageous senate majority leader can execute the “nuclear option”, (as Harry Reid did) and suspend the filibuster rule for a particular piece of legislation.
If it’s made a priority, and a concerted effort is made to educate the electorate, court expansion wouldn’t be the long shot you think it is.
Still waiting to hear your feasible ideas.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)I was defending the op for condemning those who didn’t vote for Harris in 24. That was my point.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Expansion is the last, best and only feasible solution to neutralizing this corrupt, extremist court.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)is that anyone who didn’t vote for Harris in 24 deserves to be condemned.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)I prefer to seek solutions.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)You have refused to identify any others, and the status quo is untenable.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)to defend the op condemning those who didn’t vote for Kamala Harris. I’m not trying to move the goal posts nor pretend that I have all the answers. Forgive me. I’m just not that arrogant.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)We would have to win congress, the senate and the White House. We will not win with this as a litmus test.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)From as few as 6 justices to as many as 10.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)Yes it was expanded in the 1800's from what I've read. That doesn't mean we should run on such an agenda, though I'm not opposed to the idea.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)that gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS. Anything having to do in any way with elections should be taken away from the highly partisan GOP SCOTUS and moved to a non-partisan commission to review and decide on.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)which gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS. Any cases referring in any way to elections must be taken away from the radical, anti-democracy pro GOP, GOP controlled SCOTUS and given to an impartial, independent commission to rule on so that we never again get 5 unelected, highly partisan, anti-democracy, pro GOP hacks thwarting the will of we the people by throwing out our votes and installing their personally preferred candidate in the White House again.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)The constitution gives SCOTUS primary jurisdiction in resolving matters involving the states, and that’s not going to change until the constitution is changed.
However, the impact of this corrupt court can be mitigated by neutralizing theAGA majority via court expansion, which only requires simple majorities in both chambers, a Dem president and the courage to do it.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)gives Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS and decide what cases SCOTUS will handle. No constitutional amendment is needed to do this. Furthermore, the U.S. constitution gives the elected U.S. House of Representatives the authority to settle a disputed Presidential election, NOT 5 unelected, anti-democracy GOP SCOTUS judges. The U.S. constitution further gives the states the authority to conduct elections which is what Florida was doing in 2000. Most of the authority the SCOTUS thinks it has is NOT in the constitution. It's been taken by the SCOTUS over the centuries by unconstitutional power grabs that've never been stopped by Congress. Not only did the founders of our country never envision 5 unelected SCOTUS judges deciding who occupies the White House, they also never envisioned the all powerful SCOTUS that exists today and that's now shredding the very constitution they fought and died for.
Court expansion is not enough to solve this I think at the very least our country needs a 2nd reconstruction and even possibly a 2nd revolution to fix this. No offense but someone from Canada really shouldn't be telling Americans about our U.S. constitution. I would never think to tell Canadians about their constitution. Just saying.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction in all cases involving the states.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/
That cannot be altered without amending the constitution.
You are cherry picking bits of the constitution to suit your perspective, rather than reflect reality.
Congress could pass laws stripping SCOTUS jurisdiction which would stand, until a state became a party to the case, then SCOTUS would get involved, whether you like it or not.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)You fail to understand that not only does the U.S. constitution give Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS, it also gives the states the authority to run elections, NOT the SCOTUS. American elections are run by the states and NOT the federal government or SCOTUS. This came about because the states existed before the federal government existed. Please don't think that as a Canadian, you know more about the U.S. constitution than we Americans do. Your lack of understanding that the U.S. constitution gives the states the authority to run elections in addition to giving Congress the authority to regulate the SCOTUS indicates to me that you don't know as much about the U.S. constitution as you think you do.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)But whatever you do…
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)I take great offense at someone from Canada trying to impose their inaccurate view of the U.S. constitution on Americans. If you really knew the U.S. constitution and American history, you would not be making the wrong claims that you're making. As an American, I would never attempt to tell Canadians about the Canadian constitution. Doing so would be highly offensive.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Bush v Gore is both the history and reality that supports my position that SCOTUS can indeed insert itself into election cases when a state is a party.
Looking forward to your list of cases where SCOTUS denied cert to an election related case because it was out of their jurisdiction.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)what is the mechanism for that, and why are you so sure that it will be accomplished?
(I have thoughts on both sides of whether we should or shouldn't ... those thoughts are irrelevant to the likelihood and mechanism of it happening, which is my question here)
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)The court has been shrunk/expanded before - from as few as 6 justices to as many as 10, all through congressional legislation.
The likelihood of expansion depends on two factors:
1) the awareness and motivation of the voters to select and elect candidates who support expansion, and
2) the courage of the elected officials to pass the legislation, especially the courage of those in the senate, who will need to kill the filibuster to pass court expansion.
To those who say we shouldn’t expand the court because the republicans will just do the same thing once they regain power, I say:
Democrats must never again govern out of fear of what republicans might do in retaliation.
After all, republicans never govern out of fear of what Democrats might do, do they?
If the court is expanded, and with the filibuster dead, Democrats ram through bill after bill restoring lost rights and repairing the damage of the Trump era, and then govern fearlessly, unhesitatingly and progressively for the benefit of all Americans (well except maybe the billionaires), it will be decades before republicans again have a chance to regain the trifecta of power, if ever.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)(for Congress, house or senate), plus those who retain their seats now and in 2028, will support such legislation?
Regardless of arguments for or against, frankly at this time it seems a stretch, and more of a hope* than a strategy. That said, by the time of the 2028 elections, if TSF continues as he has ... the sentiment may be much stronger in favor of doing ANYTHING to reverse the damage.
* brings to mind the expression ... hope in one hand and shit in the other ... which one fills up faster?
Another strategy is to figure out what TSF and his cabal have on John Roberts and others on the court ... and figure out how to nullify that hold and sway them back to acting at least less dishonorably. Yup, probably just as much or more of a long shot ... but we should be trying everything.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)If the voters don’t demand expansion be made the #1 priority, then we will get politics-as-usual that pleases nobody but the oligarchs.
Expansion should be raised at every Dem candidate town hall, and Indivisible/No Kings should make it a central component of their protests.
AFAIK, Janet Mills was the only openly pro-filibuster Dem candidate running for senate this cycle, and now she’s out.
Do you know of others? Angus King was staunchly pro-filibuster, but has softened his position, especially around reproductive rights.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)I disagree. This "test" would be another excuse to enable Republicans to gain more power. It would also encourage disenfranchised MAGA to vote R in the coming elections. Let's not distract them with anything but the war and the economy.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)That doesn’t mean, when liberal donors meet with candidates when those candidates ask for big donations, and when constituents attend town halls, that liberal donors and constituents shouldnt demand they take a position on expansion.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)It's a recipe for disaster.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)Regardless of who is president or which party controls the house and senate.
Without court expansion, any significant legislation will either:
1) be blocked by the filibuster, or
2) overturned by the corrupt Roberts court
That means:
No codifying Roe
No new Voting Rights Act
No substantive action on climate change
No restrictions or regulations on the billionaires robbing America
It will mean gridlock politics-as-usual, pleasing only the billionaires and oligarchs, and further reducing the Democratic Party in the eyes of the voters.
The only way Democrats can convince voters they are fighters, is to push for court expansion to remove the obstructions for good governance that benefits the people.
I can’t think of a worse disaster than Americans continuing to suffer the consequences of the Trump era for decades after he is out of office.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)of Goverment and we will not get there with the proposed litmus test.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)And without control of the judicial branch, the power of the executive branch under a democratic president would be hamstrung and crippled by the court, as would any laws passed by a Dem majority congress.
That is by design - the court empowers Republican administrations and majorities, and weakens Democratic ones.
So, by refusing to consider expanding the court, we would lose the bulk of all real power in all three branches of government .
I am not satisfied with having mere mathematical majorities that are undermined by SCOTUS.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)Let's not give the R's MORE power by imposing a purity test on Democrats.
We have an aging SCOTUS which if we win elections, can be replaced by a Democratic majority, including a President.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)If Dems retake the senate in November, then Alito and Clarence will announce their retirements immediately after election day, and Trump will fill their seats before the end of 2026. If Dems don’t retake the senate, then I expect Alito and Clarence to retire before the end of his term in 2028.
I don’t see any other MAGA justices heading for retirement soon- Kagan and Sotomayor are the only other likely candidates, and maybe Roberts, but I think he would take his chances that there will be a republican in the WH in 2032, or even 2036, when he would be 82.
So, Roberts is the only wild card where a Dem president might get to fill a seat held by a conservative in the next 10 years.
That would shift the majority from 6-3 to 5-4, still not be enough to overturn Dobbs, restore voting rights or strip away presidential immunity.
How long should folks have to wait?
Even with court expansion, Americans will continue to be deprived of various rights for at least another three years; without expansion, those rights remain off the table for at least a decade, likely more.
Demanding Dem candidates’ support for court expansion is in no way a “purity” test; it is an “ability to govern” test. If they seek to represent their constituents in congress, then they should take their job of legislating seriously, and not just go through the motions,
After expanding the court, all Dem legislators would be free to vote their conscience on any other bill that came to the floor. If a bill passes, the Dems could feel secure that it would be implemented, and not quickly overturned by an extremist court.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)We have to win, period.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)You’re not making any sense.
My point is, without court expansion, there will be a conservative majority on the court for at least another decade, perhaps much longer.
You presume that supporting court expansion is an automatic electoral death sentence for the Democratic Party- I have not seen a shred of recent (2025 or later) evidence supporting that assumption.
With Trump-induced, Republican-enabled suffering intensifying and crossing regional, racial and partisan boundaries, now is the time to take this opening to show people the court’s role in how things got so bad.
Because of that suffering, We are going to win the house, and the odds of taking the senate are improving week by week.
Although I feel strongly that court expansion must be the party’s #1 priority, I don’t think it must be the #1 campaign issue- relieving the Trump-induced suffering of the people should be.
Court reform can be rolled into an attack on the widespread corruption of this entire administration- that’s something the data shows majority support for addressing.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)I'm not going to repeat it.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)Purity test. Those have worked out so well in the past. Lol
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)First the demands. Later the excuse to enable Republicans because the 'expand the courts' litmus test wasn't adhered to.
Set up a very high bar. Then blast democrats when they can’t reach it.
mzmolly
(52,851 posts)is another excuse to blame Democrats for the outcome of the "both parties are the same/lesser of two evils" crowd.
I too am awaiting the 'how' on this suggestion.
mcar
(46,288 posts)Thus keeping that seat securely conservative.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,916 posts)I imagine he would get bored being on the losing end of decisions for the rest of his life, as well as being limited by the new ethics rules passed by the Dems and upheld by the new liberal majority, so I suspect he wouldn’t even last five years on the court.
BeyondGeography
(41,194 posts)
Nixie
(18,096 posts)If he dies does Trump get to make a lifetime appointment?
Nixie
(18,096 posts)Why is Trump there in the first place. No Democrat would have appointed right wing justices.
whathehell
(30,535 posts)discussion and Bernie isn't on it.
Nixie
(18,096 posts)malfeasance would be an issue if Democrats were picking the court. We all knew this, but some threw their power away.
whathehell
(30,535 posts)I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how Bernie Sanders being 84 fits into all this.
Nixie
(18,096 posts)certain politicians.
whathehell
(30,535 posts)At age 76 , I'm more likely to be a victim of ageism than a proponent of it, lol..Try again.
Nixie
(18,096 posts)I laughed at your distractions also.
whathehell
(30,535 posts)Your 'history' on this board?..Recent American history, what?
As to what's 'obvious', the only thing meeting that description here is the lack of clarity in your writing.
A course in expository writing might help,. Have a nice one.
Nixie
(18,096 posts)It’s all very familiar. 
whathehell
(30,535 posts)but keep digging.. 
Nixie
(18,096 posts)Edit: the lol stage is here
whathehell
(30,535 posts)..repeat baseless assertions?
Then again, I understand that it's easier than having to explain gobbledy gook. 
Nixie
(18,096 posts)It’s all very familiar.
Cha
(320,349 posts) 
💔 💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜Nixie
(18,096 posts)works.
Cha
(320,349 posts)Oh, and Hillary and Kamala told America All this Horror Show was going to happen.. Hillary warned about the Supreme Court, and they both warned about Putin.
I saw so-called "progs" (they call themselves that, but they are not), including Sarandan, post that the sC didn't matter. How stupid and bitter do you have to be?
So heartbreaking that many don't care about Democracy. Only themselves
Mahalo & Aloha, Nixie. 💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜
Nixie
(18,096 posts)speeches! If someone gives a speech, that is corruption, and who cares about the Supreme Court. It's okay to send messages through voting, but then everyone was supposed to gather and shake their fists for the Revolution. Millionaires and billionaires were the buzzwords, but now both are okay.
You nailed it, Cha. It's so tiring now to be told we need power -- no shit Sherlock. That's why you don't give elections away. I miss the smart people. Hillary and Kamala would not have nominated right wingers to the SC, as we know.
Mahalo Cha
Cha
(320,349 posts)Thank You, and On We Fight for Our Democracy!
Best of Good Luck to us in the Midterms/, with Thousands of evil forces against it. 
betsuni
(29,249 posts)people. It must be Shakespearean!"
That actually happened. Giving speeches used against Democrats as evidence of evil corrupt conspiracy -- and some people actually fell for it! Still falling for it!
mcar
(46,288 posts)Told SCOTUS didn't matter, called "vagina voters" and antisemitic because we supported HRC.
The "conscience" voters screwed us all over just so they could "bring on the revolution."
betsuni
(29,249 posts)is the only important thing. Voting rights, reproductive freedom and vagina things -- distractions!
mcar
(46,288 posts)and they're still arguing that their 3rd party votes, trashing of Democratic candidates, etc. don't matter.
But, the Democrats that they helped put in minority status get slammed all the time for "not doing enough!!11"
betsuni
(29,249 posts)At least Republicans do it for a reason.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(28,298 posts)
Martin Eden
(15,846 posts)I get the anger and frustration. Really, I do. I understand the need to vent. And DU is a place to do it.
But we all understand the absolute imperative to win elections, and to do that we need every vote we can get to overcome voter suppression and other schemes.
We need those voters who went for Nader and Stein, or rejected Kamala because of Gaza.
We don't have to forgive them.
But we should not alienate them.
leftstreet
(41,213 posts)lapucelle
(21,116 posts)We'd still have Citizens United and the initial erosion of the Voting Rights Act. There would still be at least a 5-4 conservative majority.
The 2016 election was the first presidential election after the Roberts Court originally took a sledge hammer to the Voting Rights Act. I worked the ground game in a swing state that year. The consequences were devastating for marginalized voters.
Sorry, but blaming a liberal female justice for what Republicans and third party/no show members of the purity patrol did in 2000 and then again in 2016 just doesn't cut it, no matter how many times Briahna Joy Grey repeats the talking point.
leftstreet
(41,213 posts)11 Democrats shouldn't have voted to confirm Thomas
4 Democrats shouldn't have voted to confirm Alito
22 Democrats TWENTY TWO shouldn't have voted to confirm Roberts
we could do this all day....
n/t
ColoringFool
(988 posts)DemocracyForever
(155 posts)in South Florida. To add to your list of bad votes by U.S. Senate democrats, let's also remember that not 1 of them would co-sponsor the Congressional Black Caucus's challenge to the fraudulent Florida 2000 vote count.
Behind the Aegis
(56,184 posts) lapucelle
(21,116 posts)Subtlety is not their strong suit.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)I too remain disappointed that there are still those who try to blame the victim instead of the GOP election stealers. Bush and his election stealers were cowards who refused to accept the will of the people who chose Al Gore and Bush and his election stealers were thieves because they took what wasn't theirs. This is what needs to be focused on.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Crunchy Frog
(28,298 posts)
Goonch
(5,510 posts)
mcar
(46,288 posts)lapucelle
(21,116 posts)but have nothing whatsoever to say about third party voters and whiny, entitled stay-at-homes who consistently cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)Well, the goal there certainly isn't progress of any kind.
Behind the Aegis
(56,184 posts)It is amazing how fast people will ignore the REALITY of the past for one they have made up in their head or based on shit "after the fact". I think it is called "anachronism".
mcar
(46,288 posts)Cha
(320,349 posts)What actually happened.
Mahalo, lapucele.. many of us wee.
TBF
(37,089 posts)insult everyone you can think of. Best of luck w/that approach. 
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)is "everyone I can think of"? Maybe that's everyone you can think of, but don't presume to speak for me.
As for third party voters and folks for whom Democrats are never good enough: fuck them all.
progressoid
(53,351 posts)WASHINGTON, D.C. — A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025, surpassing the 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, equal shares of U.S. adults — 27% each — identified as either Democrats or Republicans.
In most years since Gallup began regularly conducting its polls by telephone in 1988, independents have been the largest political group. However, the independent percentage has increased markedly in the past 15 years, typically registering 40% or higher, a level not reached prior to 2011.
...https://news.gallup.com/poll/700499/new-high-identify-political-independents.aspx
Link to tweet
?s=20
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)progressoid
(53,351 posts)Isn't that the premise of your OP?
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)So no, that is not the premise of the OP.
Cha
(320,349 posts)DemocracyForever
(155 posts)with their big lie that their were no differences between Dems and GOP. Nader and Stein siphoned off just enough crucial dem votes to prevent Dem victories. Let's not forget the GOP help they got to do so.
LeftInTX
(34,808 posts)I could see this coming a 1968 mile away. But no, "They're stopping genocide".
How did they stop any genocide?
"This will end the war in Gaza and they're protesting the Democrats who are in power and that's a good thing".
History does repeat itself....
dlk
(13,318 posts)The consequences of their actions (or inaction) impacts us all.
When someone doesn’t vote, they are giving away two votes to the person they don’t agree with. And like it or not, third party candidates can skew election results.
We may be the richest nation on earth but too many Americans have no idea of how our democracy actually works, and what it needs to survive.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(137,067 posts)Last time I heard about him he was at a CISCO shareholders meeting complaining his dividend wasn't high enough.
ColoringFool
(988 posts)Ralph Nader https://share.google/bYOdZuLvGUUiQCqAR
lees1975
(7,167 posts)the same old attempts at political games. More people interested in protecting their own turf and feathering their own nests instead of going after Trump based on multple indictments. Letting the foot dragging and all of the incompetence of the Justice department go on as if Republicans hadn't turned into Fascists.
Yes, there were risks and dangers. But what would be better, Trump ineligible for the Presidency and in jail because a Supreme Court removed all of the legal obsticals he was using to let Garland dilly dally around, or what we have now?
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)
The studied reluctance to blame anyone but third party voters and *protest* nonvoters for whom Democrats will never be good enough is a sight to behold.
Melon
(1,621 posts)The voters who don’t vote. That way it’s easy to avoid internal blame and instead direct their anger towards an ethereal attacker that they know they can’t correct. It’s why the party can have the same failures repeatedly for the entire world to see and we lose voters to frustration. Everyone knew that Ginsburg was too old and losing her faculties, but she fought to hold on. Repeat.
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)with followings - I guess they are called "influencers" now - who TELL people not to vote. Who throw sand in the gears of Democrats actually winning elections, because their preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.
Sometimes said not-chosen candidates themselves who only belatedly, grudgingly, and half-heartedly say, well of course you should vote for Clinton ... while their influential lackeys keep fanning the flames of grievance against the chosen candidate ... thus demotivating their followers from getting behind the nominee. (If those not-chosen candidates are truly leaders, why aren't they doing a better job getting their mouthpieces to support the goal of ELECTING DEMOCRATS?)
In this internet world, people who truly prefer a Democrat over the alternative in the general election, cannot wait until the day or even a month before the election to start talking positively about the ACTUAL candidate, and drop the issues that they argued about before the primary. As someone who supports many policies of the far-left, I wish the left's leaders which get better at working strategically for PROGRESS ... not insisting on purity tests and reaching immediately for what they consider the end goals of "progressive" policies.
I am not going to blame RBG for the failure of the far-left to talking heads to help, instead of hurt, the goal of electing a Democrat in 2016. If anything, more blame goes to the mainstream party leaders who didn't find a way to talk HRC out of running. She would have made a fine President, but no way in hell was this country going to elect her. "20 years of smears" even more than being a woman, was always going to do her in. Except that TSF was SO AWFUL she ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE. Until she was undermined by people professing to support "leftist" policies.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)"The radical mind-set was identified by Max Weber ...The radical ethic of conviction: Make your moral judgements without considering that there are bad actors who may cause your action to result in an unwanted outcome. An example of this would be a radical who voted for Ralph Nader because he believed Nader was better than Gore; and voting one's conscience is best; end of thinking. ... It is a 'moral' rule that says, 'vote as you would as if there are no bad actors in the real world.' To this day, if you read a radical analysis of the Nader voters, they will say, ... 'It's not Ralph Nader's fault ... Gore ran a lackluster campaign.' This is exactly the type of excuse that Weber predicts would be used by those following the radical ethic: If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men is responsible for the evil. Just as Weber predicted, the radical blames Gore's loss on his stupidity, not on those who knew the danger of wasting their vote and chose to ignore it.
"Weber's liberal ethic of responsibility says people are responsible for taking account of real-world consequences, as best they can, including the likely actions of bad actors. Liberal ethic of responsibility: People should strive for good outcomes given reality, bad actors and all. If the radical Nader voters had followed the liberal ethic, there would have been no Iraq War. That cannot be disputed. That's why the liberal ethic is more progressive than the radical ethic, and it's why radical righteousness so easily leads to evil outcomes.
"When you think about it, Weber's insight is a bit of a shock. It says quite plainly that in some crucial ways, radicals are not trying to win. ... Given a choice, radicals would rather be 'right' than obtain what they agree is the best possible outcome.... But really, they do what they do because their religion tells them what's 'right,' saving them the trouble of taking responsibility for their actions. The difference between liberals and radicals ... is not in wanting fundamental change for the better. The difference is that liberals think strategically about the real world when trying to change it for the better. And that's why they have had success."
Steven Stoft, "How Democrats Win, Resisting Dark Side Radicalism"
aeromanKC
(3,958 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Look who is funding the No Labels assholes
Remember Ralph Nader? So forget about voting for Jill Stein!
— Jonathan Emmesedi (@jemmesedi.c.im.ap.brid.gy) 2024-10-22T05:17:42.000Z
Ralph Nader Was Indispensable To The Republican Party | HuffPost Latest News
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065
#USElection2024 #ThirdParty #GreenParty #JillStein
Remember that Nader was funded by Karl Rove in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”
It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.
LeftInTX
(34,808 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Rove fund Nader to get Bush elected. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Nader is still an asshole. I noted that Nader does not admit that he was wrong in helping to elect Bush or Stein in helping to elect TFG
Here is the article cited in OP
Link to tweet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/26/ralph-nader-joe-biden-election/
“They have no idea of all the other sine qua non variables,” he says, using Latin to refer to other Democratic failures that factor in their two defeats.
And he still brims with the sort of advice most Democrats consider heresy, when spoken publicly. For instance, he says Democrats need a better plan in case something happens over the next year to prevent Biden from standing for reelection. He considers Vice President Harris “just not capable” and all but certain to lose in a general.
“Things happen rapidly in the 80′s unfortunately to human beings, so they need to have a Plan B in case something happens,” he said of Biden, who is nearly nine years his junior.
I really do not care what Nader has to say on any issue
Initech
(109,162 posts)Who probably get their information from Murdoch owned sources.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)magicarpet
(19,305 posts)Sorry to inform you,..
Your current membership card to the Federalist Society has been rescinded.
And all future applications for membership should be considered null & void.
Thank you for your comment,... (sorta).
Cha
(320,349 posts)The LIES those RF Assholes told about Hillary, Kamaal, and Dems, to profit themselves. 
💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜
biocube
(252 posts)Do you want the next candidate to stomp their feet and shout "vote for me you wretched bigot!"
We can't do anything about how the mainstream media is more interested in calling an equal number of fouls on both parties than telling the truth.
We can't do anything about third-party voters, especially in 2024 when Joe Biden gives the green light to let Israel kill many Arab-Americans extended families in Gaza.
We can only control how we fight. We have to campaign like New Deal Democrats. It's time. Ideas like paid family leave, higher wages, mandatory sick leave win in referendums even in deep red states. If that means kicking guys like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban out of the tent, then good riddance. I do not care if this stuff is on some party website no one is going to read. Campaign on it and ignore all the pearl clutchers that will call you "socialist". This centrist crap (at least on economics) isn't working.
Or we do the same crap in 2028 and then complain America is too misogynist/racist/homophobic to support our candidate.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,388 posts)They don’t care about your social programs. They vote to hurt others, fortunately they also hurt themselves. Maybe poverty will change their views but I doubt it. The poorest states in the union vote republican and the ignorance and hate make them continue to bang their heads with a hammer and go ouch. They gerrymander for a reason.
biocube
(252 posts)If you run as a New Dealer you can get young people to come out.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,388 posts)You live in a different world. These folks are so far down they believe that someone else is responsible for their misfortune. White men have consistently voted against what’s best for the country. Meth, hooch , hate and self pity is what drives them. I have invited anyone to go into these rural areas and try to make a change , so far no takers. The dems have rural outreach and they don’t want to change also there is a brain drain those who can get out leave.
biocube
(252 posts)And I've gone door to door as a campaign volunteer. I've literally heard people in 2016 say they were either going to vote for Bernie or Trump in the general. They see politics as establishment versus anti-establishment more than left versus right.
If you want to understand the Trump phenomena the best source is the Berkley sociologist Arlie Hochschild and her book Strangers in their Own Land. Literally everything in that book is things I've seen with my own eyes.
Democrats eventually stopped talking about universal health care and making college affordable and things like that (no, I don't care if it's on some party website no one is going to read). Meanwhile, they see Democrats as being more concerned with how diverse the people at the front of the line for the American dream is instead of making it move for everyone. That's the perception of the Democratic party whether we like it or not and we have to push back on it. It's obvious identity politics haven't worked with Trump getting a larger share of the minority vote in each of his 3 elections and the army of angry women Democrats expected to show up in 2024 who didn't.
But even if you're skeptical of what I'm saying, how do you know it won't work? We haven't tried it yet. The polls in 2016 showed Bernie matched up better with Trump than Hillary.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,388 posts)Democrats don’t discuss identity politics republicans do and it resonates with white males. They have not voted for democrats since LBJ. Obama busted his ass to give us healthcare and republicans fought it all the way to defeat. I have lived in 6 southern states and the city so I have seen a few things. You can tell black folks who vote to help everyone to F off and we’ll be okay because we are used to fighting for every inch but we will not let you use us to help a white male agenda. Again republicans use identity politics to divide and white folks fall for it every time and it has given us Satan’s spawn.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)This includes having worked hard for the last year and continuing to work into general election season to reelect my moderate Democratic representative who was able to defeat a Republican incumbent in 2024.
During the off years, I work hard to elect local and county Democrats. Due to Kathy Hochul's initiative to move elections to even numbered years, there will be less to do in the off years, so I'll redouble efforts for many county and town-wide offices in the future.
My plan going into the the 2028 election will be the same as it generally is: to work hard for the primary candidate of my choice and then (after the convention) travel to a nearby swing state to help registering and strategizing voting plans for marginalized voters. and help with the ground game for the Democratic nominee.
Thanks for asking.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)Economic equality, all policies helping Americans not important.
If most important is a complicated long-term foreign policy issue turned into an emotional moral test just for the election to demonize the Democratic candidate, that is not a serious voter. That's, yet again, falling for cheap feelings of righteousness that result in stopping progress and handing over the country to Republicans.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)How so? Use Radio and Newspapers only? No planes, just trains for travel? Support segregation and the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans? Send the army to break up labor union strikes?
flvegan
(66,484 posts)I'm not saying I disagree, just making an observation.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts) 
BWdem4life
(3,080 posts)Let go. Learn from the past and apply it to the present in a way that does not include hyperfocus on your perceived injuries.
This continued focus on 2016 is unhealthy and unhelpful.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts) BWdem4life
(3,080 posts)Although 2016 is the biggest one I hear on DU, in general it's just unhealthy to continue this focus on the past.
Based on results, shaming/blaming liberal voters for 2000 did not change their behavior in 2016. Shaming/blaming liberal voters for 2016 did not change their behavior in 2024.
So, while I won't say "get over it," I would suggest that continuing the cycle is probably not going to change anything - so why continue? Is it just an attempt to "smoke out" people deemed not loyal enough to post on DU? If so, and certain DUers prefer to enjoy the sport of hunting "too liberal for DU" people in order to purify the site, rather than engaging in a productive way with them, then I would say again this is counterproductive to making any progress with regard to Democrats winning more elections in the future.
Why not instead accept that leftist liberals who do not have any particular loyalty to our party should be courted rather than hated. And that the way to properly court them is to not just promise, but actually deliver on the things they want (things many on DU also profess to want).
Just an idea.
P.S. Being in a non-swing state, I have no vested interest in national elections. When/if National Popular Vote passes, I definitely would. In the meantime I consider myself an impartial viewer in this struggle between non-Democratic leftists and the mainstrem Democrtic Party.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)because those folks are "leftist liberals" and Democrats don't live up to their "leftist liberal" standards, and that this OP is an attempt to "smoke them out" in order to "purify DU"?
Actually, the purpose of the OP is to tender a hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone for whom the Democrat is not a good enough option to vote for in any general election, but your theory is quite revelatory.
BWdem4life
(3,080 posts)Ok, if you say so. And yet you continue with the 'hit dog hollers' innuendo. I'm trying to help, here. Sometimes when I respond to these types of OPs, I feel like I'm arguing with a MAGA because it's like talkng to a brick wall. I think I'm just gonna give up, which is what I usually do when arguing with people who don't want to listen.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)Who are the apocryphal DUers who are so leftist that they have no particular loyalty to the Democratic Party? Which posters on DU do you think need courting to actually vote for Democrats?
As for having "no vested interest in national elections" because your state isn't up for grabs and being an impartial viewer in the struggle between Democrats and non-Democrats of any stripe ... that pretty much says it all.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)I was a Clinton delegate to the 2016 national convention. The SCOTUS was discussed a great deal and Hilary warned up
Link to tweet
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)and we know what the Rehnquist 5 did with that.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Post removed
B.See
(8,764 posts)pooh poohers and naysayers notwithstanding.
The end result has been cumulative, like dominoes, each loss enabling the further harm.
The idea that the undoing of 60 years of civil rights legislation would've occurred no matter who was president over the last 25 years is, imo, a crock, if not an insult to one's intelligence.
Redleg
(7,010 posts)Let's not forget the majority culprits in this sorry saga.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)
Torchlight
(7,006 posts)And I won't play the mertiless, "well, I guess this means you also believe..." nonsense which seems to be the trendy hipster's beverage of choice this year.
PufPuf23
(9,918 posts)The Adelsons gave over $500 million to the GOP going back to 1991.
Political activities in the United States
In May 2024, New York magazine stated that the press often misreported Miriam's political donations as having been made by Sheldon. The magazine tabulated that during their marriage, Sheldon made 848 campaign donations and Miriam made 717. Sheldon had a lifetime total donation figure of $273 million, while as of the publishing of their profile, Miriam had a total of $284 million.[6]
Miriam Adelson has been described by major news outlets, including Reuters and Bloomberg, as a significant financial supporter of pro-Israel political causes in the United States, contributing substantial funding to Republican-aligned political initiatives and organizations supporting U.S.–Israel relations.[27] She has also contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican-aligned Super PACs in recent election cycles aimed at maintaining the party’s influence in Congress, according to reporting by Bloomberg and federal campaign finance disclosures.[28][29] Miriam Adelson made her first substantive political donations shortly after her marriage to Sheldon, in 1991. She soon switched her support from Democratic candidates to Republicans. The Adelsons were notably early donors to Benjamin Netanyahu in his 1996 campaign for Prime Minister of Israel and also gave some money to the second inauguration of George W. Bush in 2005.[6]
Following the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, Adelson dramatically increased the size of her political donations.[6] She was the top female donor in the 2012 United States elections, contributing as much as the next 15 female donors combined, a total of $46 million.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Adelson
Might want to add AIPAC and other rightwing donors to the GOP Congress as well.
How Israel chose to respond in Gaza is what has split the Democratic Party and lost Congress and the POTUS in 2024. POTUS Biden favoring a two-state solution and on providing limits on arms and how used is IMO why POTUS Biden was hounded from office. Trump is the best POTUS ever to Netanyahu and his supporters.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sheshe2
(98,279 posts)See ya later alligator.
Cha
(320,349 posts)tracks. 
Good Nuke!
I was on jury.
Cha
(320,349 posts)
💙 ☮️🌻🕯️🕊️💜sheshe2
(98,279 posts)
Response to Cha (Reply #133)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hope22
(4,848 posts)Anyone who refuses to demand that we have a plotted course to avoid the potential grand election theft is part of our problem !! Mark Elias works tirelessly on this We need a team and a plan. Living in a state where my voter information has already been turned over to the T thieves by our sick R State politicians I can say the potential for theft even in the best run race is real. We all need to be aware and prepared to stand up for a fair voting process!
Autumn
(49,006 posts)who didn't fight for Obama and voted for Trumps picks. All while knowing they were lying. Coney, The Drunk and Thomas.
Emile
(43,117 posts)who are trying to help Susan Collins beat Graham Platner?
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)Autumn
(49,006 posts)RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)It's going to take a minute. And those who don't trust polls will cling to "the primary hasn't been held yet". But polls are not likely to be THAT wrong. So yeah, it goes both ways. I wouldn't have chosen Platner as my first choice, but it seems accurate to say he is the presumptive nominee and he is a damned sight better than Collins or any Republican. We need that seat so I hope people stop fighting against it now that he is the choice.
And yeah I totally support the OP.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)lapucelle
(21,116 posts)I don't exonerate them. They should be blamed and shamed.
They helped create this crisis starting in 2000 and now run around whining to the Democrats they have reliably refused to empower, "Do something to fix this mess I made!"
Third party voters and purity protest nonvoters do not support Democrats. They often actively work to depress the Democratic vote and have helped Republicans to accomplish the goal of legally depressing the votes of marginalized Americans. They are fools and miscreants.
Third party voters and purity protest nonvoters need to sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.
Autumn
(49,006 posts)If they don't do that, they lose. As for third party voters? There are ALWAYS third party voters. They can be gotten by either party that appeals to them.
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)just as folks are perfectly free to exonerate bad actors who work double-time to suppress the Democratic vote and give the lazy an excuse to stay home.
Folks are even free to exonerate those who, after refusing to empower Democrats, blame Democrats for everything Republicans do with the power handed to them with the help of third party voters and purity protest nonvoters.
I choose to say to them "FUCK YOU six ways from Sunday".
Autumn
(49,006 posts)They get it or they don't. That's the system we have Saying fuck those people does nothing but sooth your anger.
Good luck
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)Folks are perfectly free to excuse third party voters and purity protest nonvoters, just as folks are perfectly free to excuse bad actors who work double-time to suppress the Democratic vote and give the lazy an excuse to stay home.
Folks are even free to excuse those who, after refusing to empower Democrats, blame Democrats for everything Republicans do with the power handed to them with the help of third party voters and purity protest nonvoters.
I choose not to exonerate them. I choose not to excuse them. I choose not to free them from blame.
I choose to say to them "FUCK YOU six ways from Sunday".
==========================
Exonerate comes from the Latin verb exonerare, meaning "to unburden." That verb combines the prefix ex- with onus, meaning "load" or "burden." In its earliest uses, exonerate was applied to physical burdens—a ship, for example, could be exonerated of its cargo when it was unloaded. Later it was used in reference to the freeing of any kind of burden, including blame or charges of wrongdoing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate
==============================
1520s, "to unload, disburden," a literal sense now obsolete; 1570s as "relieve (of a charge, blame, etc.) resting on one; clear of something that lies upon the character as an imputation," from Latin exoneratus, past participle of exonerare "remove a burden, discharge, unload," from ex "out, out of, off" (see ex-) + onerare "to unload; overload, oppress," from onus (genitive oneris) "burden" (see onus). Related: Exonerated; exonerating.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=exonerate
RandomNumbers
(19,248 posts)and work on their mouthpieces to stop undermining and start supporting said nominee.
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)
lapucelle
(21,116 posts)He's a coward who forgot that the internet lasts forever.
https://archive.ph/https://time.com/4402823/glaude-hillary-clinton/
==================================
=================================
=================================
SocialDemocrat61
(7,973 posts)on other platforms for his article. Then he posted a non-apology apology chastising people for criticizing him. And got roasted all over again. My personal favorite is actress Yvette Nicole Brown
But I fear you still don't get that you are not a victim in this. You have not been unjustly harmed.
YOU harmed us and ultimately yourself.
What you did publicly and repeatedly by encouraging people NOT to vote for Hillary -- the only person standing between us and *waves arms* all of this 💩 -- DID have an effect.
Folks respected you & LISTENED to you.
Some may forgive.
But we can't forget... EVER.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)Cha
(320,349 posts)How they liking Fucking Traitor PEDO Nazi now?
Rat Fucking jill LIAR Steiin.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)These voters are why trump was elected twice and why there is no voting rights act or right to abortions
returnee
(972 posts)Al Gore won. Repubs controlled voting and courts. If Bill Clinton hadn’t had a sex scandal Gore would certainly have had more votes. Plenty of blame to go around. One may see corruption of some sort in Nader, Stein, and West, and one can argue strategy and tactics all day long. The bottom line is people get to participate in politics in any way they choose. But manipulating courts and votes counts is illegal and corrupt and that is where I believe we should focus our blame and our activism.
Cha
(320,349 posts)RF.
The OP has it exactly right.
returnee
(972 posts)…how to categorize various activists. I’m not impressed with your argument.
Cha
(320,349 posts)returnee
(972 posts)…and we might be able to converse civilly.
Cha
(320,349 posts)The same" "Hillary would be worse, she would start a war immediately.. "
Progs don't lie.. they're Fighitng for our Democracy..
returnee
(972 posts)…has been debated forever. I stand by my post and see no point in responding. I remain unconvinced of your position.
DemocracyForever
(155 posts)in Florida with help from a GOP funded tv ad campaign which made it possible for Bush to steal the 2000 election. There's no sugar coating what Nader did in Florida in 2000. Too many still refuse to face this ugly reality.
BlueTsunami2018
(5,053 posts)It’s interesting that the left is never relevant enough to be offered any policy concessions yet so powerful they can swing national elections.
Maybe trying to win the votes of people who should be your natural allies instead of trying to capture that mythical “Reagan Democrat” vote or buddying up to full on right wingers to try to capture “disaffected” Republicans would be a better strategy.
We lost twice to the least qualified, most odious person to ever run for the office. That says something. But I suppose it’s easier to punch left than to self-examine.
BeyondGeography
(41,194 posts)Only a political know-nothing would ignore the power of incumbency. Amirite?
It took the worst debate performance of all time for anyone to even dare suggest otherwise on this board. Prior to that you can be sure that many of the people who agree with the OP in this thread were alerting on anyone who dared to go against the flow.
And now we’re supposed to be lectured on the danger of purity voters. What a joke. We didn’t lose two out of three elections to Trump because the so-called adults in the room knew what they were doing.
Cha
(320,349 posts)BlueTsunami2018
(5,053 posts)The people who want universal healthcare, housing, education, food security and full, gainful employment. The anti-imperialists, the anti-capitalists, the anti-war and anti-genocide people. The full rights for everyone people.
That’s the left. Those are the votes we should be going after. Not trying to make nice with people who stand against all of it.
It’s just fucked that the right can go as far as they want, can be as in favor of inequality, discrimination, full on laissez-faire capitalism and anti-government support for people as they want and no one bats an eye. But the second people demand better, demand basic human decency, they’re told to shut up, this is the best we can do, we have to go along to get along and all that other horseshit. That we have to serve capital, that we have to accept a certain amount of bigotry and oppression, that we have to have inadequate healthcare and education because after all, what about those poor billion dollar industries? Don’t they have a right to profit off of the misery of the “underclasses?” Don’t they have a right to put people in debt for the majority of their lives?
We have to accept a “reasonable” amount of murder and exploitation at home and around the world because a handful of people want to control the majority of the resources and sell them to us so they can have more than anyone could ever spend or use in a million lifetimes.
Doesn’t that seem fucked up to you? Does this sound like an acceptable way for things to be? Can’t we do better?
It doesn’t mean it has to happen all at once but we should at least start down the road. If there’s a party for unlimited exploitation, there has to be a party that wants none.
LeftInTX
(34,808 posts)"Reagan Democrats".
Their target groups are low turnout left leaning voters.
Some well funded campaigns go after both groups, (Democrats and GOP voters) and these candidates win.
But the generic targets are low turnout left leaning voters. In my precinct, I go after both the low turnout and high turnout Democrats. However, party resources want us going after low turnout voters. I end up self- funding lit over my allotment.
Party resources are limited and the emphasis has always been on low turnout voters. Emphasis has always been on Democratic base, blue, urban areas, minority areas etc.
betsuni
(29,249 posts)It is confusing.
LetMyPeopleVote
(181,602 posts)I was a delegate to the national convention and this was discussed. The solution is to elect more Democrats to the Senate and for Clinton to win.
Clinton did not talk about this issue in the real world. I attended several high dollar fund raisers when this was discussed.
Clinton made clear to everyone that the future of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016 and we needed to turnout to vote and elect more Democrats https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/clinton-warns-of-possible-trump-supreme-court-nominations-idUSKCN0WU16O
In a speech in Wisconsin, Clinton put the future of the Supreme Court at the center of the election debate, cautioning that any Trump-appointed justices would be likely to roll back workers’ and abortion rights and “demolish pillars of the progressive movement.”
See also https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-obama-immigration-2016-6
She added that the ruling showed "us all just how high the stakes are in this election."
"As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] and DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] executive actions," she said in a statement.
"These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation."
See also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/20/supreme-court-debate-clinton-trump-guns-abortion/92452362/
Under Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court, potential nominees would be vetted for their views on court precedents, such as the Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend freely on elections. But she might have one less nomination to make, having urged the Senate to confirm President Obama's choice for Scalia's replacement.
Those alternate legal universes emerged Thursday from liberal and conservative analyses of Wednesday night's presidential debate, when the two candidates held their most detailed discussion to date about the future of the high court.
The upshot: Trump's list of 21 potential nominees to replace Scalia and fill any future vacancies is far more specific than Clinton's, who cannot bring herself even to cite federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland by name. She endorsed him only as "the nominee that President Obama has sent" to the Senate.
I was on the Clinton victory counsel team and on the legal finance committee. This was an important issue during the campaign. I am not sure what more could have been done in the real world other than Obama firing Comey after the July press conference.
Keepthesoulalive
(2,388 posts)They are people who are easily led. Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, Joe Rogan, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan and anyone else who can get them all up in their feels. We are in this situation because people are always waiting for someone to guide them and Trump was the perfect con he promised them their deepest wishes and then robbed them of everything. Pied pipers don’t help you when you can’t pay for gas or groceries.
SunSeeker
(58,364 posts)Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rob H.
(5,897 posts)I live in a deep-Red state and could've literally voted for a tree stump for all the difference my vote made in the last several election cycles. (The Count of Mostly Crisco won just over 58% of the vote in 2024, nearly 57% in 2020, and nearly 56% in 2016.) The last time this state went Blue in a Presidential election was for Clinton in 1992 and Lyndon Johnson in 1964 before that.
Good luck with thinking hectoring and trying to shame people will bring them to the ballot box, though.
Response to lapucelle (Original post)
Post removed