Trump could win it all, thanks to just five votes.
    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      311·
      8 hours ago

      Sure, yeah, that’ll be when we finally “fight.” Totally. We’re right behind you.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    34·
    17 hours ago

    Remember, this is actually a question of what to do about a coup d’etat. Undercutting basic democracy is not a question of law, but a question of who will use force how much force to address it.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    51·
    18 hours ago

    We need to be ready to march in the streets if SCOTUS tries to pull some fuckery. They’re not even supposed to be in the loop on elections. That’s the newly elected Congress’ job.

    • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      15 hours ago

      We need to be ready to march in the streets if entities like local precinct offices or the Georgia Election Board try to pull some fuckery too, long before the fuckery even makes it to the MAGA SCOTUS.

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      83·
      14 hours ago

      Hate to break it to ya, but marching in the streets won’t solve this. More drastic measures would have to take place, and frankly I don’t see that happening.

      • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        12 hours ago

        If SC tries to hand the country over to a lying fascist insurrectionist there will be drastic measures. If they don’t respect the rule of law then that’s the breaking point where we stop respecting their laws. Biden has insane immunity coverage courtesy of the SC so we can start with some “official acts” of removal and see how all this plays out.

        • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
          1·
          16 minutes ago

          I like to think so, but I honestly think people would maybe protest a bit but then everyone would go back to work and shrug their shoulders. I’d love to be wrong though.

        • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          42·
          5 hours ago

          LARP. Sounds amazing, really. But they stopped respecting the law long ago and nobody has done or will do jack shit about it.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        72·
        13 hours ago

        On the contrary a massive number of people on the streets is the only way we’ve seen effective change in the past couple decades. Violence has led to protracted conflicts with a low rate of success.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 hours ago

            Ukraine is probably the most recent example. Russia invaded them but before that they threw their president out purely with people in the street.

            In Egypt they caused a change of governance that wasn’t a total improvement but was an improvement.

            In Tunisia and Algeria they got favorable changes in government.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            24·
            6 hours ago

            They don’t have any, they just know you’re supposed to say “take to the streets” because they think they’re a 1960s radical rehearsing boomer protest tactics. As though things might not have changed in the last 60 years.

            Counter-protest tactics have continuously adapted and evolved – from technology to legislation to media manipulation. Protest tactics have not kept pace, evidenced by the fact that this person thinks street protests have created effective change in the last 20 years.

              • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                11·
                4 hours ago

                If you follow the thread here, this is in a US context (the “we” referenced by the commenter), and it’s about “non-violent” protests, given the commenter said violent protests have been “protracted” with “low rates of success.” Euromaidan activists seized the government quarter by force and stormed Yanukovych’s mansion.

                While I take your point, this isn’t a particularly illustrative example in this context.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  3 hours ago

                  No this is exactly what it looks like. They filled the streets and they didn’t go into his mansion until he fled after the Army turned on him for using lethal force against the crowd.

                  Just like the water hoses and dogs picture was very resonant in the US. The 1964 civil rights act was passed the next year after that photo went viral.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 hours ago

            Those weren’t enough people and you can’t protest an idea the way occupy protested greed. It just didn’t work. When you look at the pictures of places that have done this they have completely filled the streets, to the point there is no controlling the crowd.

            Filling a park or a “free speech zone” isn’t going to do it.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            42·
            8 hours ago

            Or in 2000 when 750K joined the Million Moms March and stopped gun violence. Or in 2004 when 1.2 million marched to protect abortion rights and 2017 when 500K joined the Pussyhat Protests and prevented Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Or in 2014 when 300K joined the People’s Climate Match and stopped climate change.

            Yep, walking around with signs has truly been the only way “effective change” has happened in “the last two decades.”

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              11·
              3 hours ago

              You need to start adding a zero to get numbers that change things. The abortion rights marches have absolutely changed stuff. The Republicans refuse to admit they ever had anything to do with getting rid of abortion and abortion rights have won in all 7 states that already voted on it. Now they’re on the ballot in 11 states for November.

              When you get enough people, and it’s not some nebulous idea like gun violence, stuff actually happens.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    1429·
    20 hours ago

    If it comes to the supreme court, its over. Harris needs a minimum of a two state win over Trump. That means she needs to pick up one or both AZ and NC, and PA. GA is out because its basically automatic recount fuckery.

    There is another thread about this elsewhere, but way the table is set, it looks like Harris is on track to either a) lose outright, or b) lose at the SC.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      21·
      2 hours ago

      On track based on what? Polling numbers? LOL.

      The polling numbers are meaningless right now. Young people don’t answer the phone for pollsters calling from unknown numbers. and people who voted for Trump in the past and have since realized they were conned and won’t turn up to vote again are not going to have a chat with a pollster about who they’ll vote for. So pollsters can’t really assess the vote from the younger generation and everyone they talk to who voted for Trump in the past are going to say they’re voting for him again or they wouldn’t have answer the polls. Also consider women in religious community not wanted to be overheard saying they want to vote for Harris because of reproductive rights.

      I don’t fault pollsters, they’re doing the best they can. But people talking about election predictions are just talking out their asses. This election is so far out the norm it’s like asking a scientist to predict the behavior of an animal that was just discovered five minutes ago.

      Yeah we’ll just compare the data we’re getting to the last time a convicted felon that’s gone senile that had legal precedent overturned that resulted in people’s rights taken away when a significant portion of the electorate has had their brains scrambled by social media that’s run by a parodies of a James Bond villains. We’ve got so much empirical evidence we can use for a baseline for this, so we’re absolutely certain what will happen!

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      532·
      20 hours ago

      Which is why we can’t give in to defeatism and it’s dangerous to frame discussion with the notion that Harris is “on track to […] lose.” It’s not over until the election is over.

      Nothing is guaranteed in this election. Talk of Harris as though she’s definitely going to win or definitely going to lose only serves to depress voter turnout because people think their votes aren’t necessary.

      Vote like your rights depend on it; encourage everyone you know to do the same.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        940·
        20 hours ago

        is why we can’t give in to defeatism

        No, we can’t engage in self delusion.

        and it’s dangerous to frame discussion with the notion that Harris is “on track to […] lose.”

        No, its dangerous to stand in denial of the evidence. Hopes not going to get you there. The evidence we have right now suggest we might not even have to worry about SC fuckery.

        The ONLY thing that can be done is to stop with this trite, delusional thinking, and to stop advocating for this candidate blindly. That kind of toxic blindness is why the candidate is suffering. Accepting less from your candidate means they don’t do as well on election day. We need to demand better from her because if she doesn’t do better, she wont win.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          11·
          1 hour ago

          There are stories written about people that fight for what’s right and win.

          There are also stories about people that fight for what’s right and lose.

          Nobody ever writes anything about those that give up, regardless of the outcome. Gone and forgotten… as they should be because they contributed nothing.

          I’d rather be either of the first two options than the third. It’s a Pascal’s wager kind of thing… defeatism isn’t actually smart, because it makes you the loser in every outcome.

    • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
      19·
      20 hours ago

      She can just certify the vote for herself and Biden can just “official act” any scenario he wishes— per the $upremely Courted’s rulings and fuckery.