The second flag is the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, a Revolutionary War-era banner. The “Appeal to Heaven” language references philosopher John Locke, who argued that, when earthly political appeals are exhausted, men have the right to take up arms and let God sort out the justness of the cause. While the The Appeal to Heaven flag was not always controversial, it has been revived by militant Christian nationalists and was also a potent symbol on Jan. 6. This flag was flown at the Alitos’ vacation home in New Jersey in 2023.
I didn’t know the flag was literally “kill everyone and let God sort them out”…
In b4 some pedantic asshole argues about its original meaning, acting like context doesn’t matter at all, and it’s totally cool and normal to fly that flag–like Alito hasn’t told on himself already.
Maybe they ought to? There’s quite a lot of potential votes out there. Also want to add that I always vote, and politicians never consider my opinion anyway.
Reliable demographics or voting blocks get preferential treatment over fair-weather voters. If you want to know why even the GOP won’t overtly kill social security or medicare (unless they include a way to keep current recipients on benefits), it’s because old people vote very reliably. Though with the modern day cultists this isn’t as true anymore since MAGAs will happily let the GOP take everything from them if they think it will hurt their perceived political enemies.
This is just useful expenditure of political capital. As a politician you want to stick your neck out for groups that are definitely showing up.
Seems like a good way to ensure you have low turnout elections, with only die-hard party-heads participating. That way, elections are won or lost on how jazzed up you can get your base, and you never have to attract anyone new. That sounds bad enough, but I think who the politicians actually listen to are their donors. Anytime there is a conflict between what the donors want, and what the constituency wants… voters can get fucked.
It’s not die hards as you put it. They are swing voters. Every one counts double because you get a vote and take one away from the other party. Elections are won from the centre.
Sure, but I’m saying that in addition to the ‘swing’ voters, there is a huuuge pool of people that never or rarely vote. These are potential voters, many of whom could be energized by the right policies.
Ok let’s say you gamble and try to get those guys by say doubling gas taxes.You just lost the center (worth double) on the hope that some of the people who never vote magically vote. See the problem?
I’m not avoiding anything. I’m saying, look this system is so shitty that half the people don’t even bother participating in it. You’ve taken a pretty bad example of a policy to point out why neither party could possibly attract disengaged citizens. How about taxing billionaires out of existence to fund QOL upgrades for the rest of us? I bet that would gain more votes than it would lose, but something tells me the billionaire segment of the electorate is the one that matters most.
“Taxes! They want to raise taxes! They’re coming for your hard earned money! That’s all they do is raise taxes!”
And you just lost the center. We both know that’s how they’re going to spin it. In the HOPE (I choose that word very carefully) that the people that never vote will magically vote. You lose the guaranteed vote (which counts double) from people that are engaged, in the HOPE that some others maybe, possibly, hopefully, perhaps, show up. I think they’ll just say “still not enough, so I’m still not voting in protest”. The math does not work. Elections are won from the center.
Funny because that’s exactly what I think of these protest non-voters. They’ve tried nothing (literally nothing because they don’t vote) and they’re all out of ideas.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
Edited my comment, so you probably didn’t see. And we are at that point.
Is this the point where I point out that the dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years? They need all 3 to actually pass anything progressive. But the non-voters never try to give them any real control.
Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it’s 6 years of the last 32 years. Want to go further? Then it’s 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again, 6 years of the last 44 fucking years dems have had control of all 3.
And that can still be filibustered. If you want filibuster proof majority then it’s 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS out of the least 44 fucking years.
That’s why it’s tried nothing and all out of ideas.
So we’re back to the point where the system is hopelessly broken? Because what you just described is the system. You want to fantasize about non-voters just suddenly deciding to vote blue in overwhelming numbers. I fantasize about genuine, inspiring leaders and policies bringing more participation to the process. They’re both just fantasies though.
You want to fantasize about non-voters just suddenly deciding to vote blue in overwhelming number.
What? That’s you.
I’m the one saying that elections are won from the center, from swing voters that you know vote. And that the center vote is worth double. You are the one waxing poetically about the fringes, and the non-voters, and how the fringes are going to come out in droves to replace the double loss of centre voters. I’m the one saying you need twice as many (more than twice actually) to replace the center votes. But you think these droves and hordes of people are going to magically appear. You’re officially making no sense when you try to pin that on me.
Winning elections from the center is reality, not fantasy. It’s literally what happens.
And I’m saying, that it’s a shitty system. You described how this very system has kept the democrats from getting anything done for decades. There are not enough swing voters to give them sustained control over those institutions. You also make an error in assuming that every non-voter you energize would mean losing one swing voter. There are also more than double the non-voters as there are swing voters.
And what keeps them from power? Besides votes, it’s particularly these people that say “I’m not gong to vote in protest”.
Not every, but the vast majority of people that don’t vote are the ones on the fringes. That yes would mean losing the centre vote in order to appeal to.
There are also more than double the non-voters as there are swing voters.
So you are the one that thinks the hordes and droves of non-voters will come out. You think that. Not me, you. Get that right.
So I think we’re back to me saying you win elections from center. The people that vote, and not the ones that maybe, possibly, perchance, could, HOPEfully magically show up. You take the guarantee, not the vain hope.
I’m saying we’re both fantasizing. You keep talking about winning elections from the center, but it keeps resulting in gridlock and inability to deliver even on tepid, centrist policies. Yay. Also, there’s no way that most non voters are on the fringes lol. Most of them are absolutely disengaged from politics almost entirely.
Lol winning elections from the center is not fantasy. It’s literally how elections are won from both sides. That’s how Trump won imo, he appealed to the so-called Middle class manufacturing jobs (and because Hillary no vote protest).
Sounds very much like you want to justify your non-voting protest, so you have to denigrate the center win as “fantasy”, when it is in fact reality. Just so you can throw your hands up and say it’s all fantasy. Sounds familiar? This is the “I tried nothing and I’m all out of ideas” non voter which you sure sound like.
Also, there’s no way that most non voters are on the fringes lo
What are you even on about. Are you missing the entire point that there are central swing voters? These are voters. They are Central voters. They are swing voters. They vote. They are not non-voters. Is that what this whole problem is, you refuse to see the existence of central swing voters? JFC. That does explain things. Yeah it seems you refuse to see the real existence of central swing voters that actually vote. JFC. These voters, that exist, are the ones that decide elections.
And for this group that you think will come out when they are presented with some big, I’m going to say extreme left, platform for them to fall in love with are exactly the ones on the fringes. Like by definition. Disengaged people are by definition disengaged. The protest voters in waiting, waiting for some big platform are not the central disengaged ones. They are the fringe ones waiting for some big extreme left platform, and withholding their vote until they get that big extreme platform. They are fringe by definition. To appeal to the fringe ones waiting for some big platform you are going to lose the central voters that exist, that vote, that show up. JFC. I really wonder if you’re trolling at this point.
Btw this is the horde (the fringe horde waiting for big extreme platform and until then they’re withholding their vote) that you think will show up. Not me, you You think that this big horde will show up, so big that they will override the central voters that are lost. By definition this big horde of yours will have to be over twice the size of the central voters (the ones that exist) that you will lose.
Goddam. I am saying the fantasy is that this system of winning elections by fighting over the center doesn’t really lead anywhere good. You talked about how the dems haven’t had solid power for decades. So yes, they “win” elections sometimes, but then what? They haven’t won enough to get much done. The fantasy is that they ever will. Blame whoever you want for that, but it is what it is. I might blame the people who do politics professionally for not being good enough at it. You like to think that I don’t vote, but I have never said that, so you are just assuming.
You have this garbage system, and yet you totally write off disengaged voters as totally unworthy of any political attention. Don’t you think that just maybe, it is possible that a lot of people look at a system that just seems like bullshit to make rich richer and otherwise cause misery, and they just don’t see the point?
For the sake of making this easier I’m going to just assume you want things further left. So how do you get things further left? By giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose they have to go to the center, because that’s where elections are won.
So what do you as the informed left voter, that wants things to go further left, do? You vote for the Dems. You give them consistent and overwhelming victories. You don’t withhold your vote in protest thinking that the platform is magically going to go left. Because it’s not. When dems lose it’s going to go into the center. Because that’s where you win elections.
And when I say this you want to throw your hands up and say it’s all a fantasy. Seems very, very much like you just want to justify your non-voting. I hear this all the time from leftists on this platform, you (you didn’t actually say you vote for Dems) and many, many, many people that talk exactly like you.
You have this garbage system, and yet you totally write off disengaged voters as totally unworthy of any political attention.
I’m saying you win elections from the middle.
Wait you’re doing it again. You’re mixing up disengaged voters and the fringe protest non voters that are waiting for some big extreme left platform and are withholding their vote until that comes. Disengaged voters are by definition disengaged, they are effectively not voting ever. The protest non-voters we are discussing, the ones that are withholding their vote until they get some big extreme left platform are by definition on the fringe. JFC this couldn’t be clearer. Pretty much by definition going after these voters means you will lose the central voters. You are trading the central voters (the ones whose vote counts double because it’s a vote taken away from the other party and a vote for your party. And remember these are voters that actually exist, that actually vote, they are real). Okay start that again, you are trading the central voters (whose vote counts double) for this Fringe that maybe, possibly, perhaps, hopefully, perchance, could, mayyyyyybbbbbbeeeeeee show up. Do you understand that math? The math does not work out.
Do you want some recent history on that? Look at Hillary Clinton. She just went a little bit of tiny itsy bitsy left with the map room to address climate change. Trump came in and grabbed the center vote. Bam she lost the election. Btw so what happened to the horde of left voters that you think will materialize? They said “not extreme left enough, I will continue to withhold my vote in protest!” Yeah they didn’t materialize. So what do you think Biden did? Do you think he or any other politician will court these voters that didn’t show up? No they won’t, they learnt that it’s a losing proposition. They learnt that you win elections from the center, and that’s where they went, and that’s where they won.
system that just seems like bullshit to make rich richer and otherwise cause misery, and they just don’t see the point?
Lmao and you wonder why I talk like you’re the non-voting individual to make things easier. See what I said above about you the informed left voter can do.
I don’t know if I’m going to keep responding, it takes longer and longer to sort out your confusion, mixing, and refusal to see the actual central voters that actually exist. Everything has been said many times and I’m just repeating myself.
You probably shouldn’t respond anymore, since we are never going to understand each other. I assume that you are basically happy with the center and the political status quo.
If you can’t understand what I’m saying… Then you are sticking your head in the sand.
I understand what you’re saying, I just think it’s dead wrong and have explained why.
ah strawmans. That’s where you are huh. This is my thanks for explaining things. Is this where I address and explain even more? See how this just gets longer and longer? You are so mixed up and refuse to see what’s being explained.
Spend some time reading and rereading what I’ve said over the next few days. This is something you need to learn.
*Last line because mayyyybeeee you still can’t see it. When dems lose the go to the center, because that’s where they can win after they’ve lost. That’s why withholding votes does not work. And in contrast, when Dems win, they can go to the left. You want Dems to go left? Give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t understand you. What strawman? I’m assuming that you’re happy in the center because that’s kind of how you’re talking. If you’re not happy in the center then ok. You and me consistently voting for centrists is not going to pull the democrats left.
The money (and the swing voter, apparently) is happiest with center-right policies, and if we vote “blue no matter who” that’s all we’ll get. So if the center (and the money) decide the elections, how will things ever move left? The minute some future dems start going left, they’ll lose the center, and with it the election.
There’s no way out of that dynamic without a lot of new voters to ensure victory for left policies, which I’m saying, dems are unlikely to attract with their center-right candidates and policy. Is this a chicken and the egg problem? Maybe, but it also seems like a lot of people are perfectly happy the way it is.
What strawman? I’m assuming that you’re happy in the center because that’s kind of how you’re talking
God why do I bother. You say what strawman and then say the the strawman. JFC. Me saying you win from the centre does not mean that I’m happy with the centre. JFC. Are you unable to separate this out?
And JFC I already explained. JFC. I’m gonna copy paste
For the sake of making this easier I’m going to just assume you want things further left. So how do you get things further left? By giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose they have to go to the center, because that’s where elections are won.
So what do you as the informed left voter, that wants things to go further left, do? You vote for the Dems. You give them consistent and overwhelming victories. You don’t withhold your vote in protest thinking that the platform is magically going to go left. Because it’s not. When dems lose it’s going to go into the center. Because that’s where you win elections.
And when I say this you want to throw your hands up and say it’s all a fantasy. Seems very, very much like you just want to justify your non-voting. I hear this all the time from leftists on this platform, you (you didn’t actually say you vote for Dems) and many, many, many people that talk exactly like you.
Here’s part I edited so maybe you didn’t see it:
*Last line because mayyyybeeee you still can’t see it. When dems lose the go to the center, because that’s where they can win after they’ve lost. That’s why withholding votes does not work. And in contrast, when Dems win, they can go to the left. You want Dems to go left? Give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Little bit more:
They can go to the left when the win. Gore tried to go to the left, and then lost. So guess what, they went center again. He lost in part because of third party voters thinking third party will send a message.
Hillary Clinton tried to go to the left and then lost. So guess what, they went center again. She lost at least in part because of the stupid “non left enough, so I will protest no vote”.
So how do you move it left? BY CONSISTENT AND OVERWHELMING VICTORIES. IF GORE AND HILLARY HAD WON, then a) we would have had that left office, b) they could see that bit left wins, c) they could move even more left. But these stupid protest no-voters didn’t vote in protest. And guess fucking what, Gore and Hillary Clinton lost. And guess fucking what happens next? The next candidate goes to the fucking centre BECAUSE the previous candidate just lost.
So what do you as the no-vote protester do? And yes I’m saying you because you sure sound like one, and they all talk exactly like you. YOU VOTE FOR DEMS AND GIVE THEM CONSISTENT AND OVERWHELMING VICTORIES. JFC.
Protest no-voting does not work. In fact it’s counter productive because it just makes Dems lose. And like I have said many many many times, when dems lose they go to the center. JFC.
There’s no way out of that dynamic without a lot of new voters to ensure victory for left policies, which I’m saying, dems are unlikely to attract with their center-right candidates and policy. Is this a chicken and the egg problem? Maybe, but it also seems like a lot of people are perfectly happy the way it is.
JFC. I already explained this too. I’m not looking it up, it’s in previous replies. Go read. It’s the whole fringe voting horde part. JFC I can’t even. And if I wasn’t clear enough in those I just clarified that it’s WHEN DEMS LOSE THEY GO TO THE CENTRE. JFC.
I mean they do, insofar as it might be easier to convert someone not voting into someone voting for them than it is to convert someone voting for their opponent.
That’s why you vote uncommitted. There’s no way to ignore that message or use any of their usual excuses.
But the Democrats understand what they need to do in order to win election, they’re just so latched to the corporate tit that they won’t do it. Think they can get a few more gulps of that sweet lobby money before things get “serious”. The pigs are too busy feeding to give a fuck about our democracy collapsing.
Protest voting would be aimed at reforming a democratic party that’s unfit to confront fascism. It’s a legitimate strategy whether you agree with it or not.
Another Biden term will not do anything to mitigate Democratic complicity with fascism. Establishment dems are quite literally worse than useless.
Honestly as much as the lifetime appointment wasn’t the worst idea the drafters had in terms of something for long term stability when the positions in every other branch have varying degrees of volatility, not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
The Constitution seems to have been written with the idea that politicians will have good intentions. The checks and balances seem to be just to enforce compromise and prevent a single bad actor.
It doesn’t have any protections about and entire political party colluding to grab power. I don’t know how we fix this without amendments or a brand new constitution
If by “the military,” you mean the well-regulated militia (every able-bodied adult male) exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, then sure.
‘Cause otherwise you could only be talking about the Navy, as (from the founding fathers’ perspective) a permanent standing army was very explicitly and intentionally Not A Thing. (That’s why the Constitution limits for appropriating money to raise and support an army to a term of two years or less.)
All democratic government relies on some amount of good faith. Many of the rules are set up to be guidelines for resolving disputes in a civilized manner, and preventing any single bad actor.
The place where this was most respected was in the transfer of power between presidencies.
That goodwill benefits everyone. If you break it, all hell comes loose. It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.
It’s why the Dems have worked so hard to stick to the good faith, even though the other party clearly hasn’t.
I’m not so sure the reason is quite so principled. I’m more inclined to believe the explanation in this video starting at about the 6:40 mark: the difficulty building a coalition in the Democratic Party (and especially the conflicting aims of Democratic voters and Democratic donors) causes the party to avoid policy and focus on process instead.
And at the time people involved generally did. The only reason we perceive things differently these days is because we expect different outcomes easing a system designed for something else. Our system of government initially was drafted to protect the rights of white land owning males. And it still does this really well. We’ve scaffolded a lot of other things on top of that trying to make it more Equitable for everyone else. But it can’t seem to stop giving preferential treatment to White land owning males.
The thing is the founders knew that they were going to be ignorant about the future. The further out you try to speculate the more wrong you’ll be. They knew that they wouldn’t be able to understand the needs of future generations. They expected things to change. They also expected the Constitution to be heavily amended or completely written every few decades. Instead the status quo has largely ignored their wishes instead deifying them and their original creation as perfect and infallible.
not having some process baked into the Constitution to deal with bad actors in the judiciary was a gross oversight.
They can be impeached. That requires both houses of Congress to be on board with it though, and most people wanting a solution to that problem currently don’t want a solution that requires both houses of Congress or a supermajority of state legislatures to be on board because that’s not a kind of support they can get. the only other way to remove a justice from SCOTUS is one casket at a time.
The framers of the constitution. But to be fair, back then they did not expect people to live this long. If anything, blame science. It’s all their fault!
I’ve noticed a large percentage of Lemmy users don’t read articles, so rather than discussing the news in the comment section, they just nitpick the headline instead.
I’ve noticed a large percentage of Lemmy users don’t read articles, so rather than discussing the news in the comment section, they just nitpick the headline instead.
Ah, yes, there’s lemmy’s second favorite hobby, whining about paywalls rather than just pasting the url into one of the numerous sites that allow you to circumvent them if you can’t view it. But hey, why do anything for yourself when you can just demand others do everything for you?
Yeah, it’s an expression. Kinda like how you ask someone to “roll the window up” in a car and everyone knows what you mean, despite the fact that the vast majority of cars produced in the last 20 years have come with automatic windows as a standard feature. But hey, don’t let me interrupt lemmy’s favorite pastime, inanely criticizing headlines as if that actually offers anything of substance to the discussion.
But so were the last dozen things we’ve discovered about the Tribunal of Six.
Unfortunately, I expect nobody will do anything about this in an official capacity, due to obstructionism by the right, and because politicians on the left would probably think iT’s toO diViSiVE
I mean, if you try that in DC, you’ll get arrested. They require permits for concealed carry, and open carry is not legal outside of law enforcement and military.
Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito
Disturbing on the face. But then you think, what exactly do they think is ungodly? Business regulation? Gay right to exist and marry? BLM? It’s gay and trans rights isn’t it? Let that sink it, they think human fucking rights are ungodly.
The GOP will be coming for Brown v Board of Education next, and you can bet your ass Clarence Thomas and the other right wing justices will be all for it.
No, actually. The current GOP stance on compulsory schooling is, “no”. They really don’t believe every child should be educated.
I’m not even talking about kids with special needs or “just minorities”. They really don’t believe in compulsory education. It’s considered government overreach.
The ideal GOP educational system is 100% private and only those who can afford it get to go. They couldn’t care less about literacy rates.
They want the Bible taught in schools but they don’t want kids to actually read it. That would reveal what’s in it (liberal stuff everywhere!), after all.
It’s one of those things that depends on the situation. As it stands, they want “no compulsory education”, but it’s because they don’t like what the students will learn. However, if they could be assured that the compulsory education would be consistent with their views, then they would be all about compulsory education. No need to fear the Bible, there’s plenty of “help” interpreting it available to people reading it…
Same on abortion rights. Currently the rhetoric is “well, it should be up to the states, not the federal government” but if they can ban it nationally, suddenly they would not be in favor of states like New York or California deciding for themselves.
Indirectly, this is why red states have the cheapest real estate values, but no one wants to move there. Economic value is literally centered around blue states, which have the highest literacy rates
Illegitimate court. Every single ruling by them should be thrown out. Almost half of them are corrupt and compromised, letting personal beliefs and feelings sway law. Justice is supposed to be blind, not Christian nationalist. Get them all off the bench.
Supreme count set in when? I wanna grill some seitan ribs and sell them for John Brown breakfast club donations in the justices’ secret nepobaby room maybe light up a joint too. No poo poo on the walls please thou but I’m definitely gonna steal things 👺
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
In other words, dude wants some Taliban shit and wants to be able to control people are not prescribed to his religion.
If his family doesn’t want to have abortions, or wants their kids to learn about god in school, there is nothing stopping them from living that way. Just don’t force me to live that way.
The establishment clause yo
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
My main concern with the reporting is that the reporter is leading Alito a bit. Alito isn’t pushing back at all, but I feel like that is the narrative fox and others are gonna go with
He explicitly says he agrees with what she says. I don’t think it’s worth being concerned over what a propaganda outlet is going to spin up - there isn’t a scenario where they wouldn’t spin up a defense of Alito. Reality isn’t a concern for propagandists; no adjustment of tact will change that fact. To each their own, though.
He has to be part of an opinion in order for this to work. That opinion stands the test of time best if he can put forth a legal opinion that supports his preferred answer.
Well yeah but the number one thing these people crave is dominion over others. Any professed love for liberty, freedom, and the rule of law will go out the window the second they can successfully do so.
That’s why they are acting now. Because their demographics are cooked after this election, so they are going all in to try and steal control away from the people.
The way the Biden campaign is running to the right this election, Democrats will almost assuredly be losing the house and the senate, so removing any of these justices is a bit of a fantasy. If anything, we’ll probably lose a liberal justice for a conservative one.
Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative.
They don’t even give a thought to the optics at this point. They don’t care about public sentiment and what most of us want, they’ll do whatever they damned well please and asshats like Trollito will give you the metaphorical finger in the process.
That’s ALL Republicans, by the way. This is why I’ve been saying for more than a decade now that not ONE of them should be allowed into office.
Add comment