They are not going to challenge it in court - they are simply making nonsense political statements for their MAGA minions.
Predictions: How many GOP-controlled states will fight to keep the Dem candidate off the ballot?
- Thread starter artradley
- Start date
They are not going to challenge it in court - they are simply making nonsense political statements for their MAGA minions.
Today's Ezra Klein podcast is excellent on Kamala. You can check it here, among other places.
That's always the argument for settling for less than we and the planet actually need.
And it isn't even reliably true - as 2016 proved.
Of course I stand by it. If there is a legal avenue to explore, why shouldn't they. The Dems spent 8 years waging war on Donald Trump.
I won't claim to be the #1 supporter of democracy here . . . but I might be.
The fact that he got overwhelming support is mostly due to not being offered any other choices. If you wanted to argue a lack of democracy that is where the blame should be laid not with pressuring him out because the supporters said he needed to go. If the rank and file were still supporting Biden this absolutely would not be happening. There aren't a bunch outraged voters raising a stink because they can't vote for Biden. The evidence suggests the opposite that they have gained more support since he left.
That's the problem. Not that Kamala is necessarily a weak candidate, but that no alternatives will get serious consideration.
If Kamala is still the flawed candidate we saw in 2020, we're going to be stuck with her. An open, unrigged convention might prevent politically-fatal band-wagoners' remorse.
The die is all but cast. Is anyone of consequence pushing for a genuine open convention? Are there any top contenders who haven't already tucked tail?
There's no time to really do anything else,... Kamala is the life preserver that's been thrown to you, no point complaining about what color it is...
Back in my day, we used the words "reactionary" and "radical" to refer to the right and left wings, respectively.
When did we stop using "reactionary" and why?
My guesses:
1. The term "reactionary" became toxic - justifiably, because reactionaries supported vicious policies - so conservatives started avoiding that label, and convinced others to do the same.
2. If you use the same word - "radical" - to label both the far right and far left, it makes it so much easier to engage in bothsidesism and to pretend that far left ideas like health care for all and fighting the climate crisis are just as bad as taking away women's rights and destroying public education.
I suggest we resurrect "reactionary." We might be surprised how often it fits.
I'd argue the girls have a penis movement is more radical than health care for all or fighting the made up man made climate change.
Even some Republicans agree paying more taxes will somehow change the weather that we've been told there's no going back from. But even some democrats want to keep the cock out of girls spaces.
I mean...shouldn't all states block her? She wasn't elected and we don't have Prime Ministers here, which is essentially what she's be if she were to win (as a party appointee as opposed to an elected official).
You know...to protect democracy...
You know...to protect democracy...
It's cute that you keep trying to push the idea that Bernie Bros would/should flip to Trump.
"Hey aren't you mad that your favorite ice cream shop gives you vanilla when you want chocolate? Why don't you try the place across town. They only serve dog shit but you'll know what you're getting.
