It'd back fire for them everywhere. Either the court doesn't touch it, and evangelicals are pissed they've been conned or they overturn it and Dems go nuclear with overwhelming support to expand the court.
This is Trump you're talking about. The play is that the Evangelicals stroke his ego. That's all that matters.
This also shows collusion with Trump who knew of this WSJ story days ago this entire saga will be investigated and hopefully people go to jail for all of this
Who can go behind the pay wall? https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-biden-family-legacy-11603409528?reflink=share_mobilewebshare
It is an order of operations problem. Republicans need to Court to legalize massive voter disenfranchisement so Democrats effectively can't win an election again. Then pass what the want. It all goes up in smoke if Democrats hold the other two branches and expand the courts just before they could achieve their 30 year goal. They don't care about the social stuff as much as business interests. Honestly, it'd be pretty funny just to rip it away from them right as they thought they achieved victory.
I think this judge is going to be the most reactionary judge perhaps since before the Roosevelt administration. More than Rehnquist. Maybe since the Four Horsemen, maybe before.
as someone who has watched hasan for a long time this is bizarre also having two twitch people on, one who is kind of nuts but awesome in moonmoon, surreal
My shitty uncle was actually in her "Catholic" cult in South Bend for a bit in the 80's. Apparently, at his wedding, which lasted 2 hours, my grandfather had to spend an hour on one knee and at some point the other members all ran up and spoke in tongues for a while. My dad turned to my mom (it is her brother) and told her, "We got to get the fuck out of here." Uncle got kicked out cause they check your tax returns to make sure you are tithing and he couldn't afford it anymore.
I totally forgot what Weigel looked like and was like who tf is this guy then he introduced him and was like, wait this is actually good and serious
AOC's Among Us session probably all but locked up a future presidential run for her, there isn't a single Gen Z potential voter that hasn't been talking about it. In 20 years, that twitch voting block could rival the 08 Obama coalition.
you seriously think it’s that powerful? It was like half a million people watching? not saying you’re wrong, just wondering if you’re being hyperbolic
What? I mean we can argue how much effect it has, but Twitch is almost the defacto streaming platform for people under 30 now if they regularly livestream for more than 30 minutes.
600k people watching live that turns into 6 million people talking about it on twitter in the immediate aftermath to zoomers binging the clips, VODs from every streamer involved in that event and making more memes/clips/content about it. It goes way beyond just the concurrent live viewers.
My fourteen year old told me about it the next morning (he didn’t watch it live but people were talking about it the next day) - I didn’t know that he knew who she was until then.
I think it’s silly to say that cemented her future POTUS run. However her political instincts / ability / whatever you want to call it to adapt to new and non traditional ways to meet potential voters where they are is what makes her a great politician and future POTUS candidate. I can’t wait until someone like Marco Rubio or Crenshaw try to imitate it and do a twitch session
Right, and 20 years ago the internet was just an obscure medium only nerds used. I didn't say AOC's twitch session won over the boomers/gen Xers did I? Millennials and Gen Z is who will get her to the white house in 20 years, not the old fucks who still doesn't understand how people who make youtube videos can make a living.
It is just trying to get young people to pay attention to politics and vote. Basically, like this board when most everyone was still in college or just graduate. The board most certainly had a higher percentage of people voting than the national average, but everyone was far more ignorant about the stakes and issues at the time even with the Iraq War still very much a thing.
And this was only the first time, who's to say her fully weaponizing the streaming platform won't become a regular thing? Make no mistake, what happened a couple of nights ago was a landmark seismic event in the world of politics and political engagement.
With regard to the "militia/terrorists" question, I actually heard a compelling NPR interview last week (will try to find the link) with a scholar who changed my mind a bit. Basically her argument was that it's useful to refer to them as militias (who may also be either proven terrorists or aspiring terrorists) because it more appropriately contextualizes the story, which is that they see themselves as being legitimate ("well armed militia" and such) when they are in fact not. I'm certainly not doing the argument justice but I think she'd argue that it's important to explain both that they imagine their efforts as being endorsed by the constitution, and that their interpretation and understanding is also very incorrect - and you cannot make that linkage to the underlying mythology without referencing "militia".