Mayor of Slot Rocks
mayorofslotrocks.bsky.social
Mayor of Slot Rocks
@mayorofslotrocks.bsky.social
260 followers 220 following 4.6K posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
The policy not to prosecute sitting Presidents was and is a policy that Garland and Smith CHOSE to honor.

It isn’t in the Constitution. It isn’t a law.
So she shouldn't have been the nominee because she could not win? I disagree, but that obviously would reflect poorly on Biden, who made her the only option.
Once again, that is not the point. You asked why I started counting in 1992. It was because, for the most part, partisan affiliation was a poor indicator of racial views before then.

Plenty of racist whites voted for Carter in 1976 and 1980. Plenty of non-racist whites voted for Ford and Reagan.
I didn't ask you to care or not care. I said that the argument that it would have been obvious to a young, drunk Marine in Croatia is not a good one.
This argument would be stronger if you named a movie or TV show made after he was born.

FWIW, I'm actually willing to buy that a young, drunk marine could have gotten it innocently. Just not that he kept it for years without hearing the truth.
Funny. But I kind of feel stupid that I don't think I'd have any idea where to go in one of these situations.
I said from Day 1 that Biden should have agreed to one term and been out.

Yes, Biden bears substantial responsibility for the loss. He dragged the party down, failed to prosecute Trump quickly, and normalized Trump as a candidate.

In a perfect world, Dems nominate a more electable candidate.
She was also running against a felon and an adjudicated rapist. And yet she refused to hammer those points.

Did she say, "You're asking about the felon who is running to stay out of prison?" in response to every question about Trump? No.

Or "I will ask my DOJ to release the Epstein files"? No.
You're moving the goalposts. Your original point was about Presidential elections being a barometer of whether it was possible to overcome white racism.

But partisan affiliation did not strongly reflect racial beliefs before the 80s if not the 90s. Full stop.
I also love how you, as a Black person, declare yourself to be the only one who can have an informed opinion on anything that even tangentially relating to Black people. But when it comes to women, you have no problem "recognizing things when you see them."

Awfully convenient.
I'm old enough to remember when Posse Comitatus was a thing.
It is true that Trump has whipped his MAGA base into a racist fever. But that support remains in the minority. Which means that Democrats can still win, as they did in '20, as long as they turn out their own voters. Which Harris failed to do, in large part because of Biden's baggage.
So now, as a Black man, you are the authority on misogyny too?

Harris was handed a bad hand by Biden. No question. But she was running against a convicted felon who was under further indictment for inciting a coup. So it isn't like the deck was stacked entirely against her.
I didn't forget anything. It would have been stupid AF to assume in the 60s or 70s that any given Democrat or Republican was more or less racist than someone in the opposing party.
I'm guessing that if Pritsker stood in front of protestors he would be met with cheers.

Funny how one's behavior affects people's responses.
When Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton lost, their campaigns were all criticized even though they are all white. That's what happens when you lose.

Harris is no different. She lost a winnable election and her choices are going to be scrutinized whether you like it or not.
"Why limit the time to Clinton's elections?"

Because it would be historically stupid. At the time LBJ passed the civil rights bills, the Democratic Party was the party of racist Dixiecrats and the GOP had been the party of Lincoln. And it took about 30 years for the parties to realign.
You are conveniently ignoring what happens when politicians lose an election. Going forward, that politician (or another from the same party) will have to find new votes that did not show the last time.
So even though the Democrats have won the majority of Presidential elections since 1992, it was unwinnable in 2024 because...?
Nothing tells voters that Harris would have been better on Gaza than claiming that people's concerns were ginned up by the Right.
The VRA is outdated. It was build around voter suppression that was occurring more than half a century ago.

Since then, there is voter suppression in areas not covered by VRA. And other areas have improved in 50+ years.

Democrats have had decades to bring the VRA up to date and blew it.
Normal voters assume that a politician would not put political civility above protecting the nation from a fascist threat. So if Democrats are afraid to clearly describe the threat then it kind of means they don't really believe it.
I believe that if you are trying to warn people of a danger then you should describe the danger as clearly as possible.

If you refuse to use the word "fascism" and other terms that might provoke alarm then you are tacitly signaling to voters that you don't *really* think Trump is that bad.
Republicans have put government employees on notice that anyone who crosses Trump/MAGA will be punished.

Democrats have put the same government employees on notice that the Democrats will not have their backs.
Well, since there is a bipartisan consensus to not crack down on illegal spending coordination between campaigns and SuperPACs then I'd agree with you.

But if the law was enforced then SuperPACs would not be nearly as powerful.

Sadly, Dems don't want this.