Unfortunate acronym of LOWVoters
Are you fucking kidding me?
Klobuchar at 3% NATIONALLY? What the hell?
She got some good reaction press from the last debate, and that is literally all that matters. Similarly, Warren got a week of bad coverage even though she said the same shit sheās BEEN saying the whole time, and her polls are tanking.
Debates donāt matter. People donāt watch, and those who do are too dumb to understand what is going on. Media coverage of debates is what matters.
I actually like that the requirements are increased only slowly. This (in theory) gives a nationally unknown/lesser known candidate the chance to build up a voter base over time. If they had to poll at 10%+ a year prior to the election most candidacies are dead on arrival, for example no Yang or Castro. The only viable candidates would be those with massive name recognition, great fundraising ability and/or DNC support.
Counterpoint: We still have to deal with Klobuchar and Tulsi.
Sure the earlier debates were fine. Iām talking about December/January. At this point either itās working or it isnāt.
Boy, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.
note: Kennedy also voted to protect Roe v. Wade and to legalize gay marriage.
Nuance is dead.
I mean, obviously Pete has been saying the same thing from the beginning, and he wants judges that will think for themselves rather than along party lines.
His idea is ridiculous. The idea that weāll get five GOP appointed justices to agree to seat anyone left of David Duke is insane. In reality, Kennedy would be a pie in the sky best case scenario for what his five āat largeā justices might look like, and that is terrifying. Regardless of whatever he voted for gay marriage.
Also the fact that he said he wants more people that look like Kennedy canāt really be read as anything other than an endorsement?
itās not his idea. itās from some Yale profs. here:
also:
So Iāve floated several ideas and deliberately kept some level of open-mindedness about which ones are going to work best.
I like sugary cereal like Capān Crunch and Lucky Charms. Time to go tweet that I plan to eat Lucky Charms for the rest of my life forever!
I donāt care if he originated it. He is currently advocating for it. Like, Obama didnāt get to deflect criticisms of the ACA by pointing out that actually itās the Heritage foundationās plan.
Iām happy to hear about any of his other SCOTUS plans. This is the only one Iām familiar with, and it doesnāt inspire confidence that he thinks this is remotely reasonable.
term limits. (also has a big negative for me, which is the fact that theyād need jobs afterwards, which opens them up to influence by bad actors/corporations/etc)
Rotating from the appellate bench. I donāt know much about this, but I wonder if thereās enough on both sides of the political aisle to do this effectively.
I have done barely any reading or thinking about this idea so this is an extremely low info take: a) seems pretty unrealistic, although, thatās perhaps a leak in my thinking about a lot of things, b) Kennedy is pretty bad and the fewer Justices like him the better; I appreciate the structural point to make the courts less ideological in general but eh, just win and put in as many 37 year old triathlon capable liberals/progressives wherever you can place them c) no more likely to think negatively about Pete over this, still a great candidate
Yeah I wasnāt aware of his SC plan. Itās awful. We should just pack the court and be done with it. Thereās absolutely no reason to give the GOP any say in the matter at all if we win the Senate/Presidency. If they want to reestablish norms they can surrender unconditionally. Until then itās war.
We should also pack the lower courts like the GOP loves to do. Like this isnāt hard, the time for compromise, civility, and bipartisanship was like 25 years ago. They fired the first shots and for some reason weāve never even considered returning fire. Might explain why they think shooting at us is a good idea.
I mean if youāre talking about how you would go about composing a healthy breakfast, and the only point you make is that too many people argue about nutrition and in your plan youād see more foods like lucky charms and Capān Crunch it would be completely reasonable to point out that your idea of a good breakfast is pretty fucked up.
Hereās the thing, in nuanced conversation about judges (or politicians), we can use examples without it meaning we agree with everything theyāve ever done ever in their lives.
Hereās one:
I think we need to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants. I think we need more people in power who would grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, like Ronald Reagan.
Does that mean I endorse or agree that Reagan was a great guy? fuck no it doesnāt. It is, however, true that Reagan did this one good thing, and I can use him as an example
Justice Kennedy was a staunch conservative and a Trump lover who procured an unearned reputation as a swing vote and free thinker solely because he wasnāt a ghoul to gay people. Pete wasnāt praising a single decision, like you are in your example. Heās lauding the body of work.
Ridding the office of tRUmp is unequivocally the first priority, but electing a democrat that is willing to accept corporate contributions and compromise progressive ideals is a recipe for ushering in a more capable fascist once republicans retake the white house. Unless the wealth divide is addressed and the tentacles of big business rooted from the halls of government the sickness in the country that manifested tRUmp will continue to fester and get worse.
Pete screwed up, you canāt even indirectly praise any R like that without it being the soundbite/narrative.
I disagree. Now that we know who GOPete is we shouldnāt be surprised by these types of statements. Heās just playing to his base, I assume people who would vote for him like that statement. FWIW I believe that if Bernie and Warren werenāt in the race he would have said he would want more justices like RBG.