LovingHippieCat @ LovingHippieCat @lemmy.world

Here's my substack, I write about videogames and have good and bad takes ab

---

Read more

Posts

0

Comments

361

Joined

2 yr. ago

So, your solution is just ethics enforcement? How would that help with current justices choosing to read the constitution in a way that removes rights? Ethics is definitely important, but it won't change constitutional originalism from impacting us for decades. What's your opinion on just expanding the court?

So you agree that the current set up of the supreme court is flawed because they are making decisions overturning decades of precedence and putting human rights on the chopping block. What would you rather see done? Because as it stands, it'll likely take at least a decade if not 3 decades to recover from the current conservative bent of the court. A time when rights will continue to be overturned. Should we not try to fix things now by imposing term limits so the justices aren't able to die on the bench or be appointed for 40 years? Should we accept that people's rights are gonna be thrown out because of a 40 years long mission by the Christian right to bring the country back to the 50s?

Not trying to be an asshole. I'd really like to know what you'd rather do.

I thought so, too. I'd be interested in seeing what these exact people think now that she's said all that. Will that be enough for them? Or will they still refuse to vote for her. The article was written before she said what she said, so I imagine we will find out eventually. There's also people who vote for Republicans actively trying to sew discontent in democratic voters about it. A month or so back, I read another article that was similar to this one where one of the campaigners for the uncommitted movement was a republican strategist. In that article, as well as this one, there's the quote that they won't be convinced to be scared of a Muslim ban when their families are actively being killed right now. Some even saying that Trump could just randomly decide not to support the genocide because he's unpredictable. And that, if they have to choose between a ban and a genocide, they'll take the ban. Which, I get the thought process, but it's still short-sighted not to realize that their families will have a harder time surviving under a Trump presidency. Feels like a bad faith argument.

This topic is genuinely frustrating and could very well decide the election. People willing to throw away decades of progress because they don't want to compromise. Some viewing it as themselves "remaining pure". Incredibly frustrating.

Wait, there's an instance that can show you who downvotes you? I didn't know that existed. That's pretty damn cool.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was just linkerbaan and his ilk. You don't deserve to be downvoted. My comment backed you up, but I thought of it more as larger context for modern purposes. 1 or 2 significant challenges 44 years ago, while recent, still shows how unusual it is. We've had a decent amount of incumbents since then not be challenged and we had a decent amount before then not really be challenged. It wasn't a consistent thing, ya know.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you comment on lemmy using a calculator.

I don't know how old you are, but the last time there was a serious challenge to an incumbent was 1976 with Gerald Ford and Reagan. Although, in 1980, Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy, and that was more serious as it was the last incumbent who lost a primary in any state until this year in American Samoa. There were some other challengers in other incumbent primaries, but none were as serious as 76 and 80. 1972, there basically weren't any, Nixon had an iron grip on the party. Of course, in 1968, LBJ chose not to seek reelection, so it isn't applicable. 1964, there wasn't a primary in every state, but the challenger was a George Wallace, and it was more successful, but only because it was George Wallace and the party switch was just starting. 1956 had one real challenger, but Eisenhower won 85.9% of the vote overall, so it wasn't serious. 1952 was probably the most robust of the older elections, Truman lost the New Hampshire primary and decided not to run for a "third" term. 1948 had a more serious challenge, but it wasn't in every state, and Truman overall got 64.7% of the vote. 1944 again didn't have that serious of a challenge with FDR getting 79.3% of the vote. 1940 had a bit more serious of challengers, but FDR still got 71.93% of the vote. 1936 barely had anything, and FDR, similar to Obama in 2012, got 92.9% of the vote. 1932 had a much more robust challenge with Hoover since it was the great depression but that was a completely different situation. And Hoover actually got 36% of the vote. But he had control of the party, and the convention went with him.

More modern wise, 1984 was basically nothing. 1992 was a bit more serious, but Bush overall got 72.8% of the vote, and Buchanan got 23%, but Bush didn't lose a race. 1996 saw Clinton get 89% of the vote, he technically lost two races. One in north Dakota, but it was a different race cause that person won with 651 votes total. The second was to uncommitted in Michigan. And not every state held a primary. And finally, in 2004, Bush got 98.1% of the vote, so again, it was not a real challenge.

Again, I don't know how old you are, but I think all this shows that it's super rare for an incumbent to have any robust challenge in modern history. With mainly 76 and 80 being the main ones. Even the older ones where the incumbent lost races weren't usually that robust. And debates were even rarer with only really happening in 76. So overall, this year was pretty standard for incumbent challengers.

Sources: 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2004

Sidenote here at the end. I did this all on mobile, and it took way too long, but I didn't want to just give up.

It's because you used periods instead of commas in your total of aipac money. That's not proper American syntax and shows you're from somewhere else.

Are you saying the majority disagree about whether Israel should exist or about whether we should continue sending weapons or about whether they should be an ally at all? Because those are three very very different things. The majority, or at least a plurality, are definitely opposed to the genocide or are at least wanting a ceasefire. But the majority also support Israel's right to exist. They basically just disagree with the severity of Israel's actions.

If you're saying that the majority don't support Israel's right to exist or that we shouldnt ally with them, then I'd really appreciate a citation cause nothing I can find supports that.

Maybe in 08. But in 2012, like this year, there were only a few challengers, and they were actually less successful. Mainly a former Tennessee nominee for the 3rd congressional district. He got a total of 117,033 votes. An author named Darcy Richardson who got 109,764 votes. And convicted felon Keith Russel Judd, who got 73,138 votes, which was mainly from him winning 41% of the West Virginia vote, with such a low number. The uncommitted/no preference option got 426,336 votes. There were a couple other candidates but it wasn't really a contest, no debates were held and Obama got 8,044,659 votes overall. Which is less than Biden did this year with 14,465,519 votes. There were more successful candidates this year than in 2012, Dean Philips got 529,486 votes, and of course uncommitted got 706,591. Overall, Obama got 90.1% of the vote in 2012 and Biden got 87.1% this year.

Incumbents don't usually have challengers. And almost never hold debates like people wanted this year. While 2012 had more challengers, none were serious, just like this year. His 08 primary wins were more serious, of course, but I don't think that's an apt comparison.

Sources: 2012, 2024

I'm a little confused what the delegates are asking for. Early in the article it says "Activists say they don't expect a full-throated embrace of their platform — for the U.S. to stop selling arms to Israel — but say she must give them some indication that in a Harris presidency, U.S. foreign policy would shift." Which could mean that they want a ceasefire or that they want Harris to say that she will stop sending arms if they cross a line. Harris already supports a ceasefire and talks about the humanitarian crisis actively going on and how that needs to stop, two things biden has been much more coy about. Is that not a sign that policy would shift some under a Harris presidency?

Then later in the article they say "We’re just asking that the nominee of the Democratic Party espouse a foreign policy agenda that isn’t hellbent on killing people we love," said Abbas Alawieh, a Democratic strategist from Dearborn who led the campaign. "It’s actually a pretty reasonable ask, to stop killing my family."" Which, again, could mean a ceasefire, which Harris is already supporting, or could mean to stop supporting Israel, full stop.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, Harris supports a ceasefire. She has also said she supports Israel and their right to defend themselves and exist at all. I just want to know what the delegates fully want. What actual policy change could convince them to vote for Harris. Cause she's already showing more support for a ceasefire than biden did. This could be a failing of the article, or it could be the delegates not actually having a thing they will be satisfied with. Probably the article.

Hey, you've done it multiple times in this comment section, it's Kamala, not Kamela.

But it is targeting. Even you just said that minority groups are being targeted. That should be reflected in headlines. Now using the terms "slammed" or "blasted" or whatever is pointless. But target is an accurate word to use.

Thank you so much for this, I can now bookmark that one to use in the future.

Fuck the New York Times. They have routinely platformed bigots and claimed "well we have to represent both sides." My rights are not something to be debated. Harris has been far more supportive of trans folk than I realized, I don't think she would do this. But with this article and the insistent need for the New York Times to platform transphobic assholes, I think I'm finally going to talk my mother into getting rid of her subscription.

If anyone wants to learn more about Harris and her not so mixed background on trans rights, here's a great article my partner found recently and shared with me. I'm using a Tumblr link to get around the medium paywall and I don't know how to get around the paywall otherwise. Here's that direct medium link if anyone can get around it.

Not about the substance of the article, but something that the right can't comprehend is that people can grow and change their opinions. And can advocate for different policies than they supported or acted on in the past. It's okay to have been wrong. It's okay to have made mistakes. It's okay to grow and change. Maybe if they realized that they would be happier people.

In 2016, Clinton memes came about forcefully and from her being so old. Trump memes came about organically. Biden memes came around reactionary to far right memes about him. And Harris memes have come about pretty organically too. I get that memes won't decide an election, but they can influence things still.

Coconut pilled is fucking hilarious afterall.

Hey ozma, how's it feel to be right that biden would drop out? Something that you and I have discussed on here before.

A medication might have a miniscule increase in chance for cancer? Say it ain't so! We shouldn't let kids eat processed meats then. Or have direct tap water. Or eat donuts. Or fly anywhere. Or go out in the sun. Or have diabetes. Or have a cell phone anywhere near their heads. Or drink soda. Or drink anything out of a plastic bottle. Or be around a scented candle. Or fall asleep with the TV on. The fact is that just existing increases your chances of cancer. To use that as a reason to not do something that'll make you happier is insane and it will lead to you hiding under your bed for the rest of your life. Except that being at all sedentary will also increase risks of cancer so you can't just hide either.

Yes, because it is "quiet" when you feature your hatred of trans people in multiple speeches at your national convention.

They will take away our care, they claim it's about kids, but its not. They just don't think we should be allowed to exist at all.