Yeah it was like the Howard Dean scream. You could see him getting more and more nervous about it until he finally freaked out and grabbed the water, but such a normal thing to experience.
His first big exposure to the national spotlight was when he gave the Republican response to one of Obama's State of the Union addresses. And for whatever reason he had insane dry mouth and had to pause his live-on-air speech to grab an off-screen bottle of water and take a drink and for a while that was all anybody associated him with. It kind of killed his momentum as a rising star at the time.
But how is that not just a function of the size of the audience there? We see political trolls crawling out here, too, as the number of commenters increases.
I wasn't saying our current Congress will do the right thing here. If they redefine the SCOTUS thru federal legislation then they're legally in the right even while they're morally bankrupt. I just don't think the 9 justices will allow acknowledge reducing their own power on the bench if they are not legally bound to do so by Congress. Not when they seem to be ok with expanding their power on the bench (president is immune to prosecution, but only if we say so).
Would love to abolish the EC and add ranked choice voting nationally.
💯 And mail-in ballots for all voters, and all races have a "none of the above" option, and an actual majority from all eligible voters is required to win, and if "none of the above" wins the election we do a new election with all new candidates.
Top American counterintelligence officials warned every C.I.A. station and base around the world last week about troubling numbers of informants recruited from other countries to spy for the United States being captured or killed, people familiar with the matter said.
I didnt say I think Congress wouldn't do it. The SCOTUS would have no choice if Congress does it properly, albeit for the wrong reason. But we've already seen SCOTUS rule against Trump this term. So I don't think they'd go along with weakening the strength of their individual vote on the bench without Congress doing it properly.
I don't think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn't a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.
That was my assumption but the ambiguous wording combined with the headline implying the article being about Sanders left me unsure. Thanks for clarifying.
If you convince people the only thing they can do to oppose fascism is vote every 4 years, a position that is historically and objectively false – fascists don’t care about democracy – then dont act shocked when their mobilization is underwhelming.
I didn't say that voting every 4 years was the only thing they could do though. I said "they could stop the rightward slide of the Democratic party by just showing up en masse in the primaries."
Democratic party leaders were instructing volunteers to remove anyone from their lists who mentioned the Palestinian Genocide. They were intentionally not mobilizing the exact people you want to just mobilize.
Also, have you ever tried to mobilize a group to do political action? It ain’t easy, even when you aren’t tying your own hands behind your back
See this is what I'm saying. The voters in question are waiting for the Democratic party to put a better candidate forward before they will vote for a Democratic nominee. But when there are enough of these voting-eligible people to split the vote and give the Republicans the win, then surely there's enough of them to put a better candidate on the ballot without the party doing it for them.
I've posted in previous threads with sources .. over 99% of the legislative offices around the country (state legislatures and US Congress) are held by either a Democratic or Republican nominee. And we are one presidential election away from it being 60 years since a 3rd party candidate received a single electoral vote. Ross Perot received just shy of 19% of the national popular vote in 1992 and received zero electoral votes. I'm not saying the Democratic party deserves every non-Republican vote, but the winner of over 99% of every race at the state and federal level will be won by either the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee. Punishing the Democratic party in the general hasn't done anything to move the party left, and we saw Bernie's campaign in 2016 see the DNC adopt many of his campaign planks, and that led to more progressives running in and winning primaries. We see how well the threat of well financed primary campaign makes incumbents support an agenda. So clearly the primaries are where we should be applying pressure on the Democratic party.
Contact your representatives, people.