3 ms·
Bush v Gore was about a legitimate issue, deciding how a ballot should be evaluated when it is ambiguous who the person intended to vote for, and how long the p
by neaden 5y ago
Bush v Gore was about a legitimate issue, deciding how a ballot should be evaluated when it is ambiguous who the person intended to vote for, and how long the process for recounting should go. Comparing it to the 2020 election controversy or the Obama birtherism conspiracy just goes to show how far apart the modern conservative and liberal movements in the US are.
To be really clear here, if you think arguing over how to count an improperly bunched out ballot is the same thing as alleging without proof that China sent thousands of fake ballots to the US are equivalent, then you really need to stop and reflect.
- willcipriano 5y agoLegitimate or not doesn't even really matter, you are going around complaining about the other team as opposed to holding your representatives feet to the fire. If you are perfectly happy with the state of things, that's fine but it's exactly what the grandparent described. You won't live to see Medicare for All, but AOC sure dunked on Ted Cruz on Twitter.
- neaden 5y agoI'm not sure what you are arguing at this point? Do you acknowledge that the modern conservative movement has embraced conspiratorial thinking and lies in a way that the liberal movement in the US hasn't? If so your pivot to saying that I need to hold my representatives feet to the fire is very odd, since the reason my congressional representatives can't pass legislation is due to Republican obstructionism, not because of AOC's twitter account.
- willcipriano 5y ago> since the reason my congressional representatives can't pass legislation is due to Republican obstructionism, not because of AOC's twitter account Democrats can end the filibuster if they wish, however if the emperor actually has no clothes like I and grandparent suggest that would make it obvious.
- neaden 5y agoThe parent comment was saying that there was too much partisanship, you are saying the way to solve this issue is by getting rid of the filibuster? Or that if the democrats got rid of the filibuster it would prove they weren't partisan? That makes no sense whatsoever, it's essentially arguing that the democrats need to be more partisan.
- willcipriano 5y ago> you are saying the way to solve this issue is by getting rid of the filibuster? Yes. If the party that wins gets to drive then they will be responsible for the direction the country is headed in. After a few years, If people like that direction they will vote for them, if not they won't. The current system let's them blame the other guy every time they fail to do what they promised, the new one makes it clear that it just wasn't a priority for them. One way to limit partisanship is to work together, another way is to have one party win and be accountable, knowing that they will be replaced if they don't perform.
- mannykannot 5y ago> ...another way is to have one party win and be accountable, knowing that they will be replaced if they don't perform. Which brings us right back to TFA, with the govenor attempting to avoid accountability through what amounts to barefaced lies. If tactics like this are successful - and they seem to be unreasonably effective - then your alternative here will not come to pass.
- sixothree 5y agoTaking you down rabbit holes _away_ from their argument is a method modern conservatives have perfected.
- enraged_camel 5y agoIt is what-aboutism all the way down. :)