6 ms·

It's not that complicated. Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG, not a useless ditherer like Garland. What a disgraceful tenure he had. If he

by pear01 7mo ago

It's not that complicated. Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG, not a useless ditherer like Garland. What a disgraceful tenure he had. If he was going to take so long to bring charges he should have just avoided it. Instead he takes 3 years to bring all these charges which naturally look like election interference and as such are paused until they choke the election away and the new justice department kills all the cases. Don't elect a geriatric compromise candidate. The current administration's excesses create a massive opportunity for a pendulum swing. It's really not that hard. Hold yourself, your neighbors, your family and your friends accountable for who they vote for. And as tempting as it is, don't give into cynicism. It will take work but change for the better is always possible, and really in America, is far less out of reach than it would often seem.

chinathrow 7mo ago
> Elect a Democrat in 2028 Does everyone still believe this will be possible/happen/allowed by the current regime?
- pear01 7mo ago
  Is this supposed to be an intelligent comment? Is your answer to forgo elections ahead of time? You plan for the worst outcome by already accepting it as reality? Why don't you work on lobbying your grandparents and their vote because I seriously doubt you are equipped for whatever armed conflict you are imagining. Have some dignity. If Americans are so called upon to defend the constitution then so be it, there is no need to prematurely soil your pants about it.
  - QuantumGood 7mo ago
    People often in essence say "I think the odds of [the alternate option(s)] are greater than are being represented". It can be helpful to frame it that way, rather than "I will over-react to what I feel is an over-reaction".
- kortilla 7mo ago
  Yes, given that there is no evidence to the contrary.
- benterix 7mo ago
  >> Elect a Democrat in 2028 > Does everyone still believe this will be possible/happen/allowed by the current regime? Note the previous riot was unsuccessful. And probably he'll try something similar this time so the relevant services know what to expect.
  - evan_ 7mo ago
    I generally agree, but this time his VP isn't going to defect and he's been building ICE into a republican guard loyal only to him, so I think you can't just completely say "well it failed last time so it'll fail again"
    - HerbManic 7mo ago
      Yep, might not have liked a lot of what Mike Pence stood for but he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views. Vance however, I dont see much of that in action. But time will tell. Folks like to think it is a quiet conspiracy but every time you get a glimpse inside workings of government, if feels like they hate each other more than the next guy, regardless of who is in power.
      - evan_ 7mo ago
        > he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views. eh I'm not really going to agree with you on this. He flinched 1 millimeter away from committing a full coup. That's not really a positive vote, it's just not as negative as it could be.
- testing22321 7mo ago
  Does poly market have a bet on if trump is president in 2029?
kortilla 7mo ago
“It’s not that complicated. Give up your principles for short term house cleaning.” People with strong political beliefs are going to turn their head to keep their side in power rather than put someone in power that will push policies they are fundamentally against. Blagojevich was not replaced by a Republican. At this point presidential elections are won by getting members of the other side to stay home. So encourage young people to get out and vote if you want a Democrat. Don’t waste your breath telling someone who cares about gun rights to vote for a Democrat.
- pear01 7mo ago
  Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position? Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.
  - Supermancho 7mo ago
    It's a common HN convention to read: "this is an interpretion" > this is a quote Hopefully this clears things up.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - gus_massa 7mo ago
      Is it common in HN? I've seen it elsewhere, but I realy hate it. I prefer: fake quote> If I use triple quotes, enything is valid.
      - Supermancho 7mo ago
        > Is it common in HN? This is demonstrable via cntrl-F I don't know what you are trying to say with the rest.
bakies 7mo ago
The last dem did shit
- dirasieb 7mo ago
  his pants
guzfip 7mo ago
> Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG Impossible. Democratic Party power is concentrated into a gerontocracy mostly interested in preserving their own wealth/power. Appeasement and encouragement of status quo will be the result of any Democrat victory. Of course all this Trump shit is good precedent for them to use similar tactics to line their pockets next time.
- robocat 7mo ago
  > gerontocracy It's not like you see better behaviour from 41 year old Zuckerberg or other younger founders. At least with old people, you eventually have a slim chance to be one of the old bastards in charge.
michaelteter 7mo ago
Doesn't matter whom you elect, at least not as far as righting wrongs. You might prevent more egregious wrongs from happening, but convincing Congress to return to rule of law is impossible when Congress is almost entirely funded by the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge. You're also up against a large population which has been brainwashed, and even if someone deprogrammed is still not intellectually capable of reasoning beyond their own immediate interests. In other words, a democracy where ignorant people can vote is ultimately doomed to look quite like what we have now.
- pear01 7mo ago
  While I broadly agree with this characterization, it is somewhat inaccurate. > the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge. I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush. Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be. Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge". That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.

by pear01 7mo ago

chinathrow 7mo ago

> Elect a Democrat in 2028 Does everyone still believe this will be possible/happen/allowed by the current regime?

pear01 7mo ago
Is this supposed to be an intelligent comment? Is your answer to forgo elections ahead of time? You plan for the worst outcome by already accepting it as reality? Why don't you work on lobbying your grandparents and their vote because I seriously doubt you are equipped for whatever armed conflict you are imagining. Have some dignity. If Americans are so called upon to defend the constitution then so be it, there is no need to prematurely soil your pants about it.
- QuantumGood 7mo ago
  People often in essence say "I think the odds of [the alternate option(s)] are greater than are being represented". It can be helpful to frame it that way, rather than "I will over-react to what I feel is an over-reaction".
kortilla 7mo ago
Yes, given that there is no evidence to the contrary.
benterix 7mo ago
>> Elect a Democrat in 2028 > Does everyone still believe this will be possible/happen/allowed by the current regime? Note the previous riot was unsuccessful. And probably he'll try something similar this time so the relevant services know what to expect.
- evan_ 7mo ago
  I generally agree, but this time his VP isn't going to defect and he's been building ICE into a republican guard loyal only to him, so I think you can't just completely say "well it failed last time so it'll fail again"
  - HerbManic 7mo ago
    Yep, might not have liked a lot of what Mike Pence stood for but he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views. Vance however, I dont see much of that in action. But time will tell. Folks like to think it is a quiet conspiracy but every time you get a glimpse inside workings of government, if feels like they hate each other more than the next guy, regardless of who is in power.
    - evan_ 7mo ago
      > he was at least willing to operate with humility. He always took the honest route ecen if you disagreed with his views. eh I'm not really going to agree with you on this. He flinched 1 millimeter away from committing a full coup. That's not really a positive vote, it's just not as negative as it could be.
testing22321 7mo ago
Does poly market have a bet on if trump is president in 2029?

kortilla 7mo ago

“It’s not that complicated. Give up your principles for short term house cleaning.” People with strong political beliefs are going to turn their head to keep their side in power rather than put someone in power that will push policies they are fundamentally against. Blagojevich was not replaced by a Republican. At this point presidential elections are won by getting members of the other side to stay home. So encourage young people to get out and vote if you want a Democrat. Don’t waste your breath telling someone who cares about gun rights to vote for a Democrat.

pear01 7mo ago
Why are you appending a sentence I never said within your quote of my position? Your comment reads like you are arguing with yourself. I never suggested anything to the contrary of much of what you write, so frankly I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I suggest you re-read my comment in full as I think we are predominantly in agreement.
- Supermancho 7mo ago
  It's a common HN convention to read: "this is an interpretion" > this is a quote Hopefully this clears things up.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - gus_massa 7mo ago
    Is it common in HN? I've seen it elsewhere, but I realy hate it. I prefer: fake quote> If I use triple quotes, enything is valid.
    - Supermancho 7mo ago
      > Is it common in HN? This is demonstrable via cntrl-F I don't know what you are trying to say with the rest.

bakies 7mo ago

The last dem did shit

dirasieb 7mo ago
his pants

guzfip 7mo ago

> Elect a Democrat in 2028 who will nominate a strong AG Impossible. Democratic Party power is concentrated into a gerontocracy mostly interested in preserving their own wealth/power. Appeasement and encouragement of status quo will be the result of any Democrat victory. Of course all this Trump shit is good precedent for them to use similar tactics to line their pockets next time.

robocat 7mo ago
> gerontocracy It's not like you see better behaviour from 41 year old Zuckerberg or other younger founders. At least with old people, you eventually have a slim chance to be one of the old bastards in charge.

michaelteter 7mo ago

Doesn't matter whom you elect, at least not as far as righting wrongs. You might prevent more egregious wrongs from happening, but convincing Congress to return to rule of law is impossible when Congress is almost entirely funded by the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge. You're also up against a large population which has been brainwashed, and even if someone deprogrammed is still not intellectually capable of reasoning beyond their own immediate interests. In other words, a democracy where ignorant people can vote is ultimately doomed to look quite like what we have now.

pear01 7mo ago
While I broadly agree with this characterization, it is somewhat inaccurate. > the same powerful interests who chose to put a lunatic in charge. I don't think this is accurate as a fact of recent history. As I recall, said interests wanted a repeat of Bush v Clinton. While they may have fallen in line since, I think this picture you are painting misses a lot of nuance. The current president was considered a joke up until the votes started coming in. So I think you are painting with an overly broad brush. Secondly, at a certain point this starts to read like little more than cynicism. What is a suggestion you have, that isn't merely one in the negative? I genuinely sympathize with your perspective, but I'm curious what the subsequent step is then meant to be. Thirdly, preventing egregious wrongs is pretty important. I don't believe rule of law is permanently out of reach. If your basis for this is the broad brush you painted earlier well then I don't think that actually computes. And I don't think preventing egregious wrongs should be minimized, even if structural issues are a barrier to "righting wrongs" as I believe you correctly put it. Solving those structural issues is a longer discussion, and one predicated on the requirement that there is no longer a "lunatic in charge". That in of itself, is important. Let's also remember they could have brought the cases earlier. Your comment doesn't really address that, unless you are essentially claiming someone paid off Garland to dither away for 3 years. I gather that is not your claim? Therefore I think you're being overly cynical. As I said, in many ways it's not that complicated.