|
Granted, there was a real disparity in the Cold War how both sides viewed the other. The US in all honesty probably saw things from a comparatively broader ideological perspective, they saw all forms of "communism" as equally dangerous and that they should be crushed....errr "contained." It didn't matter that Vietnamese or Cuban forms of socialism often had their own national characteristics or motivations...they had to be crushed one in the same. If anything one could argue that the US may have helped the Soviets by being so hard-lined and rigid and thereby forcing governments that may have taken a more moderate direction to directly align themselves with the Soviets to survive. Also, "crushing capitalism" really wasn't a Soviet motivation since about 1919-1920 or so when it was clear that the October revolution would be mostly contained inside the former Russian Empire. Since that point, it is very clear that Soviet geopolitical strategy was much more on a nation by nation basis, and the Soviets (even under Stalin) were willing to work whomever they could. The crushing of the 1956 uprising was very much geopolitical, the Soviets were honestly fearful that Hungary leaving would leave to a broader fracturing of the Warsaw Pact that would put the Soviets in a deeply weakened position versus the West. (This is very clear from the Soviet archival material. I have seen most of these stuff with my own eyes) Basically, the US was fighting an all-encompassing ideological war. The Soviets, in reality, were fighting a comparatively less ambitious geopolitical struggle. The war in Vietnam "made sense" due to this. Also, contemporary US politics more or less continue to use much of this logic.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup, the U.S. leadership was operating under very serious misunderstandings about how states balance and bandwagon, particularly states that claim to have ideological kinship, but in reality have very little in common. The "loss" of China to "Communism" really broke the brains of the foreign/defense policy apparatus. The possibility that China wouldn't simply become a client state of Moscow, but instead would pursue a very different set of foreign policy objectives, apparently didn't occur to any of them. Powerful states that have competing interests don't tend to bandwagon, unless they are facing an existential threat from another adversary. Granted, it does bring us to present day, and now you have US foreign policy arranged about "containing" a growing number of states with different motivations that nevertheless seem to be increasingly willing to work together. Cuba, China, Russia, Iran and hell even Zimbabwe seem to be more closely working together especially in economic terms. It is also why you have countries and groups working across the ideological spectrum (although most of these states are authoritarian even then it probably isn't confidential). It is why I am not really convinced about any real ideological war happening today, rather it is just a more easily understandable geopolitical knife fight. I guess the question of who will "win" is another matter. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, one good lesson from all of this for superpowers going forward is, if you don't want other countries balancing against you, maybe don't do poo poo that makes them want to balance against you. Granted, it is arguable that no one power had as much power over the world as the US did especially from 1991 to 2008, and with that much power comes a comparable amount of hubris. That said, future history textbooks are going to have plenty to talk about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The issue as discussed earlier was that there was, in fact, different types of communism (the Soviets, China and Vietnam weren't necessarily on the same page) and that by the 1960s, the Soviets weren't interested in "exporting revolution." The war was predicated on Dominio theory, it is just that Dominio theory was complete nonsense and essentially a fantasy. If anything it is a very good lesson of how DC has produce theories that have been stewed in echo chambers beyond any usable form. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
Btw, it should be mentioned how the entire conflict started.quote:On the urging of the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh initially attempted to negotiate with the French, who were slowly re-establishing their control across the area.[90] In January 1946, the Viet Minh won elections across central and northern Vietnam.[91] On 6 March 1946, Ho signed an agreement allowing French forces to replace Nationalist Chinese forces, in exchange for French recognition of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as a "free" republic within the French Union, with the specifics of such recognition to be determined by future negotiation.[92][93][94] The French landed in Hanoi by March 1946 and in November of that year they ousted the Viet Minh from the city.[90] British forces departed on 26 March 1946, leaving Vietnam in the hands of the French.[95] Soon thereafter, the Viet Minh began a guerrilla war against the French Union forces, beginning the First Indochina War. Essentially the French refused to acknowledge the right for the Vietnamese people to rule themselves through free elections, this devolved into a guerilla war that then inevitably pulled in the superpowers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
It is definitely possible to say FDR/Johnson weren't leftists or there were bad parts of the New Deal but at the same time they were way to the left (in purely relative sense) to current Democrats, who seem arguably seem to the right of some of the Republicans of that era. Also, as far as the New Deal goes you need to be specific about which parts were racist (that domestic/agricultural workers couldn't get social security, or the FHA ignored redlining) rather than say African Americans didn't benefit from any parts of it. Otherwise, a lot of American history doesn't make sense...African Americans started to switch sides during that era from the "Party of Lincoln" to the Democrats during that era despite the Dixiecrats (the big shift happened in 1936). quote:It is also important to recognize that this hope was not merely based on empty promises of change, but on the actual words and deeds spoken by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and taken by the federal government at a time when racism was deeply seared into the American psyche. With respect to the critical issue of employment, for example, we know that by 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was employing approximately 350,000 African Americans annually, about 15% of its total workforce. In the Civilian Conservation Corps, the percentage of blacks who took part climbed from roughly 3% at its outset in 1933 to over 11% by the close of 1938 with a total of more than 350,000 having been enrolled in the CCC by the time the program was shut down in 1942. The National Youth Administration, under the direction of Aubrey Williams, hired more black administrators than any other New deal agency; employed African American supervisors to oversee the work the agency was doing on behalf of black youth for each state in the south; and assisted more than 300,000 Africa American youth during the Depression. In 1934, the Public Works Administration (PWA) inserted a clause in all government construction contracts that established a quota for the hiring of black laborers based on the 1930 labor census and as a consequence a significant number of blacks received skilled employment on PWA projects. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Chomsky has some insanely good writing and speeches about this. The MiC/pentagon system is the only thing keeping our economy competitive, but it does so in a super inefficient way to keep government money from benefiting the proletariat. Admittedly, it does have a dual purpose of furthering American foreign policy interest...well theoretically at least and binding our allies to the US via military technology/support. That said, you can see we are slipping a little bit, especially when traditional allies like the Turks/Saudis are starting to buy Russian weapons. Granted, part of the reason may simply mean our weapon contractors are so secure in knowing their interests are taken care of they don't really have to "try that hard." The F-35 obviously is the best example of this (but the Seawolf/Zumwalt are also pretty good examples).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well yeah if you strawman reparations into that Dave Chappelle skit where every black person gets a bag of cash it sounds pretty dumb. I think it would be useful that reparations would come in the form of long-term assist to African-American communities including programs for direct federal employment (think WPA) and subsidy payments to local schools. In addition, I would say it is fair to say poor African-American communities may need greater/long-term help than even other poor communities based on continued racism that targets them directly. Also, this could be coupled with the Justice Department direct long-term monitoring of police departments that have a history of violence against Black communities. That said, I generally prefer spending that is focused on building communities first than direct payments, and it is also why I am skeptical of a UBI as a cure-all. A giant part of the economy is essentially funded by trying to claw cash out of the hands of the poor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Granted, if I was her, I would certainly be paranoid, that isn't a sign of mental illness but a reaction to circumstance. Personally, it sounded like she wanted to at least give the standard press a shot but quickly got cold feet and went back to probably her strong plan B which was WikiLeaks, who she knew would absolutely get it out there. Btw, I still find WikiLeaks useful even if they have an obvious axe to grind. I am for all the information I can get. (I personally also couldn't really care about Assange one way or another.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Liberals and Leftists just aren't on the same side, especially when it comes to the US government/American nationalism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Eh, to be honest, I think it is fair to call the Soviet Union a form of state socialism even if they didn't achieve socialism much less communism. I do think there is a difference between modern day China and the Soviet Union (outside the NEP which is much murkier admittedly). Also, yeah the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying during the war, and the course of the war was decided somewhere on the Eastern Front. And FDR was a liberal, but he was one of the few that realized you can't just let the entire country eat itself alive and so he is a bit of exception. Also yeah he certainly didn't have a perfect record either. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
I think most of the soldiers fighting on the Eastern Front were admittedly primarily interested in not seeing their families exterminated and/or surviving (although it was a bit of a reach).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Every story that comes out of the DNC makes it seem it exists more or less there to aggrandize those who are a member of it and fulfill their pet ideological interests. It wouldn't be that bad except the fact we really don't have a choice, and that gives them massive amounts of power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Granted, the way I see it JC is just a bit more honest than most centrists in how much they despise anyone pushing for leftward economics. I honestly believe centrists are terrified that leftism isn't just going to complicate elections/primaries, but will lead to a degree of class leveling they will honestly do anything to stop. For centrists, keeping America's verticle class system is the key priority and everything else is secondary. I do think a lot of leftists have a blind spot regarding this, and it really shouldn't be a surprise when centrists become increasingly hostile. It isn't a personal thing, but just part of a greater ideological battle. (The DNC is a good example of how this works in practice.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
I think the issue is that we are forced to vote for such terrible options in the first place, and that our system doesn't have the flexibility (at least now) to present better options. It is absolutely great that some things are changing at the local/state delegate level, but the real battle for the big ticket races is yet to come and there I think the DNC and other party organizations are going to be flexing their muscle. Also, if Franken doesn't resign, he needs to be priority primary target (for a variety of reasons to be honest). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Yeah, this is getting really grim especially in the context of the rhetoric that was coming from that wing of the party just a few days prior.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It's what happens when people base their politics on tribalism. It may be both tribalism and the that, maybe that very vocal group really didn't actually believe in much of the rhetoric they were spouting. At the core, I think that wing of the Democratic party, as I said in the past, wants the economic status quo and everything else is secondary including it seems issues like sexual harassment. Furthermore, I was pretty bowled over that even a Democrat like Duckworth would be willing to accept tax cuts as long as repatriations (which are almost always fairly minor) goes to infrastructure. 30-40 years ago that would be something a relatively right-wing Republican would have proposed. We are being boiled, the heat isn't set on low but the cover is on the pot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
As a reminder, the public option actually passed by the House was weakened to the point it would actually charge higher than private rates and would have estimated to have only covered 6 million people. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/711728
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
I mean there is an honest reason why you wouldn't want to go through a Senate investigation: it would eventually get buried among dozens of other scandals and at best he would get censured in exchange for some political concession (which would most likely be at the expense of the public). Also, there is a stark contrast between the man Franken acted like back in the 2000s, when he was one of the most vocal and stinging critics of the right, and what he has become today.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:
Granted, I would also say that the history of the Soviet Union in particular needs to be grabbed with before you can fully realize any democratic socialist model even if there isn't a reason to "copy" the Soviets. How do you move forward with a democratic socialism model when you meet armed domestic or foreign resistance (for example)? Honestly, as a Russian/Soviet historian, I don't know if much of the left has really grasped what happened in the Soviet Union and why, and that makes me a bit worried. Granted, part of it is, simply that the West, in particular, is using largely outdated works that haven't really incorporated the body of archival evidence out there. As for actual socialist countries that exist, maybe the closest is Cuba although it also has been obviously liberalizing. That said, that really isn't that unique either (look at the NEP). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:realchat: what do you want the West to understand about Soviet/Russian history and is there recommended reading? Depends on what subject you want to talk about, if you are talking about post-war economics/trade, "Red Globalization" is pretty good. Also, "Affirmative Action Empire" if pretty good if you want to read about nationalities policy. Stalin himself is a bit more difficult because it is so politicized, but I think Wheatcroft's Great Famine book is a place to start for at least the Holodomor. Majorian posted:Yeah, it doesn't help that the peculiarities and failures of the Soviet system aren't really framed in the broader context of Russian history. A lot of what is frequently cast as inherent problems in socialism were, in fact, simply iterations of political phenomena that occurred throughout Russian history. Stalin only makes sense if you understand Ivan IV, the Time of Troubles, Peter the Great, etc. That or even Russia under Nicholas II, the circumstances of the Civil War, the NEP and the inter-party debates of the 1920s. The Soviet Union is generally treated as thing ideological entity rather than another Moscow-centric state that existed the way it did for a reason. It is also why comparisons between living standards with the west or democratic socialism is a bit bonkers because it really has nothing to do with what was going over there. Admittedly, I don't think copying whatever Moscow was attempting at the time in the 21st century is a good idea (cough Venezuela cough), but it is more useful to see what happens to a revolutionary state coming out of a developing country under certain economic and political pressure. If you're a leftist revolutionary, a liberal, or hard right...there are plenty of lessons that need to be learned. Crowsbeak posted:I have. If America is to be purified of the worshippers of Mamon, we need to be ready to enact punitive measures on the worshippers of Mamon. We must destroy their temples and their idols and have their children raise by those not affiliated with their idolotry. Yeah, but that eventually gets complicated when you need to implement the NEP... Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bukharin would have won. Eh, I think Bukharin had plenty of his own issues, especially once you get to the crisis of the later NEP and essentially where does the Soviet Union go from there. I actually doubt the Soviet Union could have fixed their balance of trade through the type of grain yields they were seeing. Preobrazhensky was more right, even if it is a bit awkward to admit it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:In a weird way, America is in a uniquely good position to become socialist, since it wouldn't have to deal with the same degree of Western retribution that smaller countries have had to deal with (like, say, Yugoslavia or something). Most countries have "the US and other Western countries will sanction us (if not flat-out declare war or something)" as a significant barrier to becoming socialist, but the US would be able to avoid most of that. Well, in the case of the US, it is arguably it has enough infrastructure (still...) and resources it could be relatively self-sufficient, but I do think it would have to compete with the rest of the world at some level. It could work if the transition is relatively peaceful, and the US pretty much just needs to "coast" more or less and investment doesn't really need to be directed by the state more than it would in any other developed state. Also, there would still be the need for some type of banking/financial system even if it is individuals/cooperatives needing lines of credit (obviously the Soviet Union/PRC also had banking systems.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, we have theoretically easy access to firearms, but a lot of the sale, distribution, and ownership of firearms is concentrated among mostly right-wing shitheads. It also wouldn't make a difference if the military didn't defect in large percentages and bring heavy machinery with them, and that is very unlikely to happen with most of the air force and navy. Granted, I think the closest we could get would be a New Deal 2, mostly to keep the population from revolting (basically the actual reason for the New Deal). That said, I think a far-right authoritarian state is more right up our alley.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:America is a normal country that keeps kids caged away from their parents for good reasons Fascism doesn't necessarily need guys wearing uniforms and waving flags to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Yeah, there would be an argument is there was another younger politician waiting in the wings but there isn't. You got to go with what you have, and none of the other front-runners are acceptable. Ocasio-Cortez might very well be a good candidate in 2028 though (I don't she think can quite make 2024).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Cortez appeared yesterday, you have no idea whatsoever what politicians will be available in 2024 /28, or what will have happened with OC by then. Fine, but it is a start....that is as long they are actually on the left. quote:Pretty much. The importance of experience and stature has not diminished, if you are going to be serious about winning AND governing. Ideology is more important. If they want to "tinker" they're worthless and it doesn't matter how long they have been around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Imagine how much progress Democrats could make if gays had no rights, women couldn't vote, and slavery was still legal. Then they could appoint a blue ribbon commission to study the matter (hey, we're clearly better than the other guys.) The Democrats don't actually have any core values beyond maintaining the destructive status quo but be willing to give up on some social issues if there is a political cost of not doing so. Their only defense is that the other guys are worse (or they really hope they are). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:"Was gay marriage the right thing to do? Irrelevant." Let's be honest, it is an excuse to actually not push on any issue until the public is so overwhelmingly for it (and doesn't cost the wealthy anything) that it nearly impossible not to support it. That said, I wonder how much politicians actually care about any of this beyond how it affects their career and future kickbacks/rewards.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Republicans never, ever punch right. Ever. Because they know that's their base, it's the direction they want to take the country. Those are their allies. Democrats consistently punch left, they attack their own base, they call their own professed values unworkable or impractical. The answers is centrists honestly hate the left more than many Republicans, any talk about "working together" is usually followed by demanding the left to give up on whatever stance it has. Centrists don't want to let the left alone to its own devices, but smash it into little pieces and incorporate whatever remains with appropriate messaging. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Aug 8, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
It is one among many reasons that thread is a bizzare. There are regular rather extreme positions taken against fascism at least superficially, but whenever the subject comes up about how to actually change anything realistically in the US the usual response is "just keep voting Democrat." So, we shouldn't tolerate the existence of Nazis, but we should absolutely tolerate if not encourage the system that seems to be producing them in even greater numbers. It is "the outcome is bad, but the causes are very good" pretty much taken forward.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In terms of old-school large-circulation printed broadsheets, no not really. The left exists in magazines and online. I don't think it's as bad as Britain though, where the newspapers seem to be 100% openly far-right except for the Guardian (and the New Statesman?) which are somehow even more pathologically liberal than the NYT or any media outlet in the US The Guardian honestly has trended pretty far to the right as well. Honestly, there is very little differentiation in the Anglosphere at this point. Btw, WaPo was traditionally to the right of the NYT, and made its transition to pretty much being a center-right/right paperback in the 2000s. The NYT's "transition" is much more recent, and it is still a bit awkward.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Radish posted:The New York Times conspired with Cheney to get us into Iraq it's not that recent. I guess I should say they tried to keep the facade up longer than the WaPo. That said, as with most mainstream outlets, they obviously pretty much gave up in 2016. Also, the NYT has always had a bias regarding Palestine, but their recent reporting has been a shift from that position to pretty much full apologism. It is pretty telling the hottest thing about left-wing media at this point is podcasts.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Trump gets impeached, they can't run against him in 2020. For them, "opposing Trump" means blocking his bills, not impeaching him. Also, there is a high likelihood the Democrats may not be able to keep its caucus together if impeachment happens. I know everyone expects the Republicans to break, but it very well may be a bunch of Blue-Dog(ish) Democrats refuse to go in for it in order to save their skins. Pelosi doesn't want to promise what she may not be able to deliver. Also, Trump, has somehow been able to keep a fair amount of polling on his side, and it really doesn't look like he lost much of his base if at all. He only won 46% of the popular vote in the first place so polling 42-43% coupled with some shy voters/undecided voters isn't that bad (shows where we are all going). Also, there is a question of who the establishment backs, because they certainly aren't going to back Bernie and I just still have a very hard time seeing Biden as actually competitive. I mean the second Biden actually campaigns everyone will suddenly remember who Biden actually is. So then you got the rest of the pack (my bet is still on Harris).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2018 14:02
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Pretty much. I think how you feel about Warren on the left spectrum largely depends on weather or not you believe that capitalism is something that can be negotiated with. If you think we can increment our way back to a New Deal status quo with capitalism as a willing partner, then you probably feel pretty good about Warren. If you view the New Deal being nearly completely rolled back over a century as capital has accumulated more wealth and power than it's had since the Gilded Age as the planet burns to death and concluded that saving capitalism from itself was a mistake, then you probably don't feel all that great about Warren. Granted, part of it is just a natural and I think warrented suspecion of American politics where everything pulls to the economic right at all times. It that enviroment it makes sense to point as far left as you can because you are probably still going to end up right of center policy wise. If Warren got her ideas through congress, great, but honestly I prefer a more brass-tacks canidate so to speak. The war of arrition for health care is the main fight at this point, not that other fronts are aren't important but maybe health-care is winnable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Radish posted:Also I'm noticing the Trump thread has started up another "vote Blue no matter how poo poo the candidate, it's your fault when Republicans do bad things" debate. Did the Democrats start tanking in the polls other than that idiot in Tennessee? Granted, Tennessee alone is probably going to make it possible for the Democrats to regain the Senate (which means the House is going to be a talking shop).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 12:41
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's absolutely the intent of third wayers like Clinton and Obama, but the people in that twitter conversation probably honestly think the likes of Frum and Kristol are good people now because beating Trump (and then ending all fighting right there once Reasonable conservatism is back) is so important. Honestly, it is probably because there isn’t that much daylight between thirdwayism and Reaganism in the first place. If anything the whole thing about bipartisanship was to find a middle ground between the center-right and the traditional right.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The people who are so eager to ally with the NeverTrumpers are the people who don't think there's anything wrong with normal conservatives aside from minor political disagreements - that Trump and only Trump is the problem. After all, Trump's actual policies aren't much different from Bush's. Granted, a large part of it is just tone, if Trump did everything he was doing in a conventional manner, the opposition would be significantly less. It is also why 2020 is going to be almost certainly going to be a trash fire, and honestly, don't see it how it can't be one at this point especially with Warren probably running. I think I became numb to an extent because well you can see that the next 10 years at least are going to be complete poo poo. The Democrats are going to stubbornly refuse to change, and have the tools to give then at least a taste of power while far and away actually be able or willing to accomplish anything useful. Edit: I use to think if Bernie had 4 years with a Congress that would work with him, it might stabilize the situation a bit. That is before Kavanaugh got nominated. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Oct 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Because she put forth almost zero effort to get a few independents to say "Oh hey, the Republicans are wrong here?" The results showed she had very little Native American blood.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You know the constitution doesn't limit how many supreme court justices there can be and that it is ow popular among dems to talk about court packing right? If FDR got cold feet, then the modern-day Democrats wouldn't even dare. It is less likely than a trillion dollar coin being printed. Groovelord Neato posted:yeah they shift to "she's barely native american!" now. Nah, they are going to say she lied to get special treatment (even if it was just a FB page) and 1/512th is essentially nothing. (I don't think this, but it was a stupid idea to give them ammo.)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2018 15:45
|
|