Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Shadowferal]

And yes, progressives like you did far more to get Trump elected than I ever could.

Well, the oblique reference to your support of the prior administration comes as no surprise whatsoever. Are you really missing his twit rampages?

[Ivanstone]

Abortion is at risk, because Trump won in 2016. It was easily the most important election of my lifetime, and led to a gigantic shift un power in the courts. That wasn't deregulation, that was an election.

As for the election system being tipped against Democrats (and far more tipped against third parties), that's the results of regulations, not deregulation

Abortion is at risk because well moneyed conservative groups won the mid term elections in 2010. Elements of America’s election system are not well regulated. Voter registration system’s are abysmal, redistricting is terrible, finance laws are weak and not well enforced. About the only thing it does well is tabulate votes correctly.

Trump was the lucky recipient of decades of hard work by some very immoral people. Not shocked that you don’t understand this.

[Machismo]

Well, the oblique reference to your support of the prior administration comes as no surprise whatsoever. Are you really missing his twit rampages?

Nah, I doubt you could find many who railed against Trump more than I did.

But hey, keep on lying to yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is at risk because well moneyed conservative groups won the mid term elections in 2010. Elements of America’s election system are not well regulated. Voter registration system’s are abysmal, redistricting is terrible, finance laws are weak and not well enforced. About the only thing it does well is tabulate votes correctly.

Trump was the lucky recipient of decades of hard work by some very immoral people. Not shocked that you don’t understand this.

This is all about 2016, because it ends at the SCOTUS.

The Dems lost in 2010, because the ACA was a shitshow.

[Ivanstone]

This is all about 2016, because it ends at the SCOTUS.

The Dems lost in 2010, because the ACA was a shitshow.

The ACA didn’t exist in 2004. The GOP are no strangers to voter suppression but the plan was to spend massively in 2010 so they could take control of the redistricting process in as many states as possible. The GOP more or less controls election laws in a majority of states due to their plans for 2010. This also allowed them to rewrite the judiciary to further entrench their power. The plan to take control of the SCOTUS dates back to the 80s but didn’t get turbocharged till 2010.

Deregulation wouldn’t prevent this. Deregulation would just have men shaving their beards so they can vote twice in a day like the 1800s.

[Machismo]

The ACA didn’t exist in 2004. The GOP are no strangers to voter suppression but the plan was to spend massively in 2010 so they could take control of the redistricting process in as many states as possible. The GOP more or less controls election laws in a majority of states due to their plans for 2010. This also allowed them to rewrite the judiciary to further entrench their power. The plan to take control of the SCOTUS dates back to the 80s but didn’t get turbocharged till 2010.

Deregulation wouldn’t prevent this. Deregulation would just have men shaving their beards so they can vote twice in a day like the 1800s.

Anortion is in danger, because the GOP controls the Supreme Court. The bottom line is that the GOP had a solid strategy with Michael Steele leading them. The ACA had a terrible rollout, and was not popular. It energized the shit out of voters.



Oh, and what they did was add regulations and restrictions... oh the irony.

[Ivanstone]

Anortion is in danger, because the GOP controls the Supreme Court. The bottom line is that the GOP had a solid strategy with Michael Steele leading them. The ACA had a terrible rollout, and was not popular. It energized the shit out of voters.

Oh, and what they did was add regulations and restrictions... oh the irony.

The GOP only controls the SCOTUS due to long term planning that had nothing to do with Trump

The ACA could've rolled out better but its detractors only hated it because of constant negative messaging from the GOP money machine. Death panels? They're real but that's because the US uses a regressive insurance system. Those panels have existed since health insurance began within the US.

They mostly didn't add regulations or restrictions. They mostly just used existing rules to their benefit. Many states are susceptible to gerrymandering for example because there's no regulations against it. Voter registrations need to be altered because people move or die. In red states though this mechanism is used to target Dem districts almost exclusively because there are no regulations to prevent this from happening. Never mind the outright cheating like when Kemp and Husted illegally purged voter rolls.

You need a well regulated voting system but the US has few checks and balances in many states and its openly abused. Deregulating the system would just cause widespread voter fraud.

[Machismo]

The ACA that came out before the 2012 election? The one where the Dems picked up 2 senate seats and nothing changed in the House? Yeah, totally energized voters... Not seeing where any of that is on progressives... Oh the irony.

The ACA came out in early 2010... and the Dems had o e of the worst election defeats in history. Even Obama called it a "shellacking."

Or, do you want to keep going with this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010...ates_elections

[Ivanstone]

The ACA that came out before the 2012 election? The one where the Dems picked up 2 senate seats and nothing changed in the House? Yeah, totally energized voters... Not seeing where any of that is on progressives... Oh the irony.

The Federal election doesn't matter. It was the State elections that mattered. That's where the GOP did most of their damage. Controlling the states is what allowed the GOP candidate to win the Presidency and then subsequently abuse the judiciary.

[Machismo]

The GOP only controls the SCOTUS due to long term planning that had nothing to do with Trump

The ACA could've rolled out better but its detractors only hated it because of constant negative messaging from the GOP money machine. Death panels? They're real but that's because the US uses a regressive insurance system. Those panels have existed since health insurance began within the US.

They mostly didn't add regulations or restrictions. They mostly just used existing rules to their benefit. Many states are susceptible to gerrymandering for example because there's no regulations against it. Voter registrations need to be altered because people move or die. In red states though this mechanism is used to target Dem districts almost exclusively because there are no regulations to prevent this from happening. Never mind the outright cheating like when Kemp and Husted illegally purged voter rolls.

You need a well regulated voting system but the US has few checks and balances in many states and its openly abused. Deregulating the system would just cause widespread voter fraud.

Trump had 3 nominees in 4 years. That is fucking huge. That made it go from a possible 6-3 for Democrats, to a 6-3 for the GOP.

The ACA crushed the Dems in the mid-term elections they lost over 60 seats in the House. The GOP won the nationwide vote by several points.

Of course, 2010 was nothing compared to 2016.

- - - Updated - - -

The Federal election doesn't matter. It was the State elections that mattered. That's where the GOP did most of their damage. Controlling the states is what allowed the GOP candidate to win the Presidency and then subsequently abuse the judiciary.

And now, with the SCOTUS well in hand, the Dems have no real shot at challenging those huge advantages in those states. The GOP is simply better at the game.

[Edge-]

And now, with the SCOTUS well in hand, the Dems have no real shot at challenging those huge advantages in those states. The GOP is simply better at the game.

What direct impact does the SCOTUS have on those efforts, even?

[Machismo]

What direct impact does the SCOTUS have on those efforts, even?

Any challenges to lawsmlime abortion restrictions will eventually lead to the Supreme Court.

That's why abortion is in genuine peril in the United States

[Edge-]

Any challenges to lawsmlime abortion restrictions will eventually lead to the Supreme Court.

That's why abortion is in genuine peril in the United States

Are we talking abortion or taking back power at the state level? I thought it was the latter, as a way of getting to the former, in which case...SCOTUS wouldn't come into play. It's getting confusing with issues getting mixed together like this.

[Ivanstone]

Trump had 3 nominees in 4 years. That is fucking huge. That made it go from a possible 6-3 for Democrats, to a 6-3 for the GOP.

The ACA crushed the Dems in the mid-term elections they lost over 60 seats in the House. The GOP won the nationwide vote by several points.

Of course, 2010 was nothing compared to 2016.

And now, with the SCOTUS well in hand, the Dems have no real shot at challenging those huge advantages in those states. The GOP is simply better at the game.

Incorrect. The GOP candidate had 3 nominees. One of which was obtained under dubious circumstances. The GOP president could've been anyone but fortunately for the Dem's, Trump picked a weak candidate (Kavanaugh) who could potentially be removed from the bench due to perjury.

Yes. Long term planning and a lot of fake news. The GOP hasn't done as well since. The problem with being in charge is that sometimes you actually have to do your job.

2016 wasn't anything actually. 2010 was the real win. The GOP has been barely hanging on ever since. All of their wins have come from very thin margins.

The GOP is the more dishonest player in the game. Not too shocked that you consider that "better". Dem voters do need to be less lazy about mid terms though.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why abortion is in genuine peril in the United States

Also if Roe v Wade is overturned this just becomes a states rights issue. Blue states will keep in the books and expect a black market in abortion pills everywhere else.

[Machismo]

Are we talking abortion or taking back power at the state level? I thought it was the latter, as a way of getting to the former, in which case...SCOTUS wouldn't come into play. It's getting confusing with issues getting mixed together like this.

In reality, both. Any challenges to things like gerrymandering also go through the SCOTUS.

[Edge-]

In reality, both. Any challenges to things like gerrymandering also go through the SCOTUS.

Not really - https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/73184...-federal-court

They washed their hands of it and want nothing to do with state-level squabbles over districting.

[Machismo]

Incorrect. The GOP candidate had 3 nominees. One of which was obtained under dubious circumstances. The GOP president could've been anyone but fortunately for the Dem's, Trump picked a weak candidate (Kavanaugh) who could potentially be removed from the bench due to perjury.

Yes. Long term planning and a lot of fake news. The GOP hasn't done as well since. The problem with being in charge is that sometimes you actually have to do your job.

2016 wasn't anything actually. 2010 was the real win. The GOP has been barely hanging on ever since. All of their wins have come from very thin margins.

The GOP is the more dishonest player in the game. Not too shocked that you consider that "better". Dem voters do need to be less lazy about mid terms though.

- - - Updated - - -



Also if Roe v Wade is overturned this just becomes a states rights issue. Blue states will keep in the books and expect a black market in abortion pills everywhere else.

Kavanaugh is never getting removed. Not. Going. To. Happen.


2016 cannot be understated.. It is the reason that things like abortion are at risk. The dems won in 2020, and have a shot at stopping election problems. But, they have no shot at the Supreme Court.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really - https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/73184...-federal-court

They washed their hands of it and want nothing to do with state-level squabbles over districting.

We've seen that the SCOTUS is willing to rule on things, and if the Dems had control, then they would have had a chance at stopping gerrymandering. Those chances are gone.

Look when that ruling was, and how they voted.

Now, imagine if Hillary had won in 2016.

[Edge-]

We've seen that the SCOTUS is willing to rule on things

Rule on what? Did you read the article? It seems unless it's an issue that touches something like the Voting Rights Act specifically, they don't want to get involved in intra-state squabbles.

and if the Dems had control, then they would have had a chance at stopping gerrymandering. Those chances are gone.

Control of what, the state? There's still a path to Democratic control of states, see Democrats seemingly reverse the downward trend of Democratic governor numbers around 2018, which continues in 2020 with 23 Democratic governors - https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/78560...ck-under-trump

There's a greater focus being put back on state-level politics, and a lot more activism (especially grassroots) around it to boot. Plus the nationally changing party identification information - https://news.gallup.com/poll/343976/...gest-2012.aspx

They're not gone in any way, shape, or form. This is a gross mischaracterization of the state of state-level politics on the national stage.

Look when that ruling was, and how they voted.

Yes, and?

Now, imagine if Hillary had won in 2016.

...what? I mean, it still seems that the door is open for issues like racial gerrymandering, but purely political gerrymandering isn't expressly illegal nor unconstitutional and honestly shouldn't be in the SCOTUS lap. And it's one I kinda buy, even if I hate the result. Courts shouldn't be the arbiters of what's fair/unfair political gerrymandering, that puts justices in an impossible position that they realistically shouldn't be in.

It should absolutely be resolved at the legislative level, with bi-partisan/non-partisan districting.

[Machismo]

Rule on what? Did you read the article? It seems unless it's an issue that touches something like the Voting Rights Act specifically, they don't want to get involved in intra-state squabbles.



Control of what, the state? There's still a path to Democratic control of states, see Democrats seemingly reverse the downward trend of Democratic governor numbers around 2018, which continues in 2020 with 23 Democratic governors - https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/78560...ck-under-trump

There's a greater focus being put back on state-level politics, and a lot more activism (especially grassroots) around it to boot. Plus the nationally changing party identification information - https://news.gallup.com/poll/343976/...gest-2012.aspx

They're not gone in any way, shape, or form. This is a gross mischaracterization of the state of state-level politics on the national stage.



Yes, and?



...what? I mean, it still seems that the door is open for issues like racial gerrymandering, but purely political gerrymandering isn't expressly illegal nor unconstitutional and honestly shouldn't be in the SCOTUS lap. And it's one I kinda buy, even if I hate the result. Courts shouldn't be the arbiters of what's fair/unfair political gerrymandering, that puts justices in an impossible position that they realistically shouldn't be in.

It should absolutely be resolved at the legislative level, with bi-partisan/non-partisan districting.

They ruled 5-4 along party lines. This was after Trump was able to nominate two people to the Court. It's reasonable to think that gerrymandering would have already been shot down.

That's why 2016 was so huge, and will continue to be huge for more than a generation.

[Edge-]

They ruled 5-4 along party lines. This was after Trump was able to nominate two people to the Court. It's reasonable to think that gerrymandering would have already been shot down.

That's why 2016 was so huge, and will continue to be huge for more than a generation.

Gerrymandering would have been shot down? That's...not what the case was about at all...nor what the SCOTUS would have ruled on overall.

[Machismo]

Gerrymandering would have been shot down? That's...not what the case was about at all...nor what the SCOTUS would have ruled on overall.

It shows that the SCOTUS would have been willing to look at those cases, instead of denying them entirely. If the Dems had their 4-5 majority, which is what they would have had, and it was ruled along party lines like it had been, then that's what the outcome would have been.