Kennedy to retire.

[Karha of Honor]

But I have a feeling that "blue wave" they fantasize about is not going to materialize

Don't be quite so sure. In 2010, the Reps were leading about 9 or 10 points. Now the Dems are leading about 6. The wave depends on which way the undecideds break, which, given how well the economy is going, probably depends most on the president.

The Tea Party managed not to murder itself over Foreign policy divisions.

Saying a latino character on a silly superhero tv show sucks gets you branded a racist. Dito if you dislike a movie about fucking space wizards. They had no equivvalent of an obscure ideology like feminism pushed by an entrenched press elite.

[unknownsample]

Sure is a shame the Democratic Party can't get it's shit together and be a proper opposition.

Democrats could be better, but for me the big shame is Republicans gaining a majority control that they don't really represent through gerrymanders and electoral college nonsense.

All of these things need fixing (and more). It's not that any one of them is necessarily a deal-breaker, it's that the whole pile of them create a system which is increasingly non-functional, and it's picking up steam like an avalanche...

Hmm, I'm not sure that mixed-metaphor works, but you get the idea.

If Democrats are truly the majority based who they select to lead them in the arena of culture and politics considering how dominant they are culturally and how they treat the outgroups....

Shit would go to hell way faster with a one adult one vote systelm. The Big Dick Motherfucker of all power overeaches would lead to the Godzilla of all Backlashes.

Sure is a shame the Democratic Party can't get it's shit together and be a proper opposition.

Nobody forced them to overdose on identity politikcs and see Nazis under every bush.

Or maybe American politics could be conducted on a level playing field.

I douhbt you would have had the current gay rights regime as quickly and many other progressive gains if everyone would vote.

Where did I say that?

By a level playing field I mean the following

1, no more gerrymandering.

2. Stop restricting the rights of people to vote.

3. Limit how much a person can donate to a political candidate.

[unknownsample]

They had no equivvalent of an obscure ideology like feminism pushed by an entrenched press elite.

Feminism is an obscure ideology, well that's a new and interesting viewpoint and by a new and interesting I mean completely ridiculous.

[TGLS]

Don't be quite so sure. In 2010, the Reps were leading about 9 or 10 points. Now the Dems are leading about 6. The wave depends on which way the undecideds break, which, given how well the economy is going, probably depends most on the president.

The Tea Party managed not to murder itself over Foreign policy divisions.

Saying a latino character on a silly superhero tv show sucks gets you branded a racist. Dito if you dislike a movie about fucking space wizards. They had no equivvalent of an obscure ideology like feminism pushed by an entrenched press elite.

What does that have to do with the numbers game I'm playing?

[Rocketboy1313]

Saying a latino character on a silly superhero tv show sucks gets you branded a racist. Dito if you dislike a movie about fucking space wizards. They had no equivvalent of an obscure ideology like feminism pushed by an entrenched press elite.

I don't know what you thought you were saying here. This is nonsense.

[Robovski]

Sure is a shame the Democratic Party can't get it's shit together and be a proper opposition.

Democrats could be better, but for me the big shame is Republicans gaining a majority control that they don't really represent through gerrymanders and electoral college nonsense.

All of these things need fixing (and more). It's not that any one of them is necessarily a deal-breaker, it's that the whole pile of them create a system which is increasingly non-functional, and it's picking up steam like an avalanche...

Hmm, I'm not sure that mixed-metaphor works, but you get the idea.

If Democrats are truly the majority based who they select to lead them in the arena of culture and politics considering how dominant they are culturally and how they treat the outgroups....

Shit would go to hell way faster with a one adult one vote systelm. The Big Dick Motherfucker of all power overeaches would lead to the Godzilla of all Backlashes.

Sure is a shame the Democratic Party can't get it's shit together and be a proper opposition.

Nobody forced them to overdose on identity politikcs and see Nazis under every bush.

Or maybe American politics could be conducted on a level playing field.

I douhbt you would have had the current gay rights regime as quickly and many other progressive gains if everyone would vote.

Where did I say that?

By a level playing field I mean the following

1, no more gerrymandering.

2. Stop restricting the rights of people to vote.

3. Limit how much a person can donate to a political candidate.

1. Both parties are complicit in gerrymandering and more needs to be done about it.

2. Only citizens should vote and getting ID isn't hard for a citizen. Or are you falling prey to the racism of soft expectations?

3. It's less about individuals and more about PACs and how much money a corporation can donate/spend. Total reform limiting all contributions would be great but a pipe dream.

[unknownsample]

1. Both parties are complicit in gerrymandering and more needs to be done about it.

At the moment only one party is complicit in gerrymandering and its the Republicans

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... istricting

2. Only citizens should vote and getting ID isn't hard for a citizen. Or are you falling prey to the racism of soft expectations?

Except a number of states have adopted harsh voter ID laws designed to stop people who vote Democrat.

3. It's less about individuals and more about PACs and how much money a corporation can donate/spend. Total reform limiting all contributions would be great but a pipe dream.

That's largely what I meant.

[cilantro]

The Supreme Court could always switch over to 18-year terms. That way we could guarantee one of these exciting arena matches every election cycle.

18 years term limits (and you can only have one term since it would be very long to serve) and/or maybe the next Democrat can just get Congress to add more seats to the SC? I once heard that FDR wanted to and tried to have the SC to have 15 judges (instead of just 9 judges) his presidency but the Dems in Congress was like, "oh no that is too crazy." Technically, as far as I know, there is nothing stating that their can only be 9 judges.

[TGLS]

FDR was angry that the SC wasn't doing what he wanted, so he decided he would change the rule so he could add more justices if they weren't retiring at 70 and a half. He abandoned it when the SC changed their mind. The SC has its composition defined by the Judiciary Act of 1869.

[Darth Wedgius]

What about better limits on what the Supreme Court does? At the moment, the Supreme Court can make up whatever it decides is a new constitutional right, or deny any existing constitutional rights it wants to, on the basis of whatever whims strike the justices' fancies. That's not a duty given to it in the constitution; it's a power the Supreme Court grabbed.

If the executive and legislative branches, acting together, could override the Supreme Court, or, better, if the states together could, this whole battle over the historical dice roll of what administration is in office when a justice retires could lose the importance that was never intended to be so (pun intended) supreme.