• David_Eight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          51
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          She could also try to convince Biden to have them assassinated, which would be totally legal.

            • DaleGribble88@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’m not advocating for it, but like, if they are dead they can’t really speak up about their opinions. Again, not condoning murder, but just thinking through the logic on this.

          • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not a non-zero possibility, considering how often Biden is confusing names now. Just present his name in a brochure that seems to talk about the middle east and needing to assassinate a target, that gets it an automatic human right’s pass.

          • saltesc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Ever played Suzerain? There’s a timeline where this is possible, but you gotta play it right.

            That said, this speech would make a big impact in that game. But it’s obviously fictional and based in the beginning of a the Cold War within the Eastern Bloc, so it’s more realistic in expected outcomes than the reality of 2024 United States. Maybe they can make a hardcore mode DLC based on those societal and political conditions.

            In truth, regardless of camps, all Americans should be livid if they are those that refer to themselves as real Americans—honestly, patriotic conservatives the most, in protection of the constitution. Unfortunately that unity is gone, so the words will get washed away by a torrent of bias before they can be pondered on.

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Suzerain

              Hadn’t heard of this game, but looks interesting. Is it a grand strategy game like EU4 or HOI, but with a narrative? Or am I way off?

              • sp3ctr4l
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                It is functionally a well written and presented ‘choose your adventure’ political drama.

                There are elements of randomness and gameplay systems, but it is not really a grand strategy game with a whole extremely complex simulation engine undergirding it, the way Paradox games are.

                I would say that it does count as a strategy game in the sense that navigating toward outcomes you want does take a good bit of understanding how power politics works within basically the Cold War era, particularly from the standpoint of a non aligned nation.

                Maybe you could say its like the Paradox games, if they stripped most of the numbers mechanics, made them less complex and not the focus, and were left with mainly narrative events and focus trees, but those were done in great detail.

                Note

                I played this game basically right when it came out, several years ago, and it may have changed since.

                • prole@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Interesting, thanks for the info.

                  it is not really a grand strategy game with a whole extremely complex simulation engine undergirding it, the way Paradox games are.

                  This might actually be a plus for me, for as much as I want to love those games, I always ultimately get bogged down in that shit.

                  I haven’t played in a while, but I have over 100 hours in EU4, with at least a half a dozen of the dlc, and I can say that I still don’t truly know how to play those games “properly.” The level of detail is simultaneously insane and dumb (sometimes their approximations of real life things are understandably absurd). I love the idea of them though.

                  I just got a new PC with a little more juice, and picked up Victoria 3 and have been debating if I should start watching tutorial videos or not…

                  Completely and wildly different genre, but I’ve been very intrigued so far with Workers & Resources: Soviet Republic as a city builder with a pretty impressive amount of detail. It’s unique among the genre as the main goal isn’t financial, but more focused on the well-being of your citizens. Lots of public housing, public transport, walking paths… There are two currencies, and if you choose to deal with the West you have to use a separate currency.

                  I feel like if I’m going to put the time into a complex “simulation” game at this point, it might be that one.

              • saltesc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Kind of. The genre is hard to explain. You would like it if you’re into grand strat. I’ve done four playthrough and two DLC,.each time taking on different tactics and stances.

          • Matt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            By the president ordering the assassination of every Republican legislator, lobbyist and RNC operative.

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        ·
        4 months ago

        We’d need every Democrat and a few Republicans. Since these traitorous justices are what’s giving Republicans power, it’s pretty unlikely. Still worth trying.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, you push the issue and get people on record voting to defend blatant corruption. Then you can use it against them in the next election. House Reps run for office every two years. It’s really frustrating to watch the Democrats abandon a cause because “it will never pass the House.”

        • IamSparticles
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s just to get the articles passed in the house. To get a conviction in the senate you need a 2/3 supermajority. Never happen. But it doesn’t hurt to get people on the record as opposed.

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          And when that fails:

          We take to the streets We take to our representatives We disrupt everything until we solve this matter.

          You best believe there will be an out roar.

      • Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        There’s always a chance, it’s just very small. These corrupt justices are the end game for the republican party, the odds of any of them breaking ranks to convict is very low.

        That said, it’s almost certainly not about conviction, so much as upholding the rule of law and creating political pressure and support for something like packing the court.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The motion will get assigned to a committee, run by Republicans, where it will die. Even if there is a sympathetic Republican on that committee, all House members are up for re-election in November, and voting for this is a sure way to get the MAGAs all up in their grill and would likely lead to that person losing a ton of MAGA support, and likely losing their job.

        AOC knows this and is doing this to help Democrats in vulnerable districts, to help turn the House in the next Congress. “Elect us into the majority, and we will actually look into this.”

        • dumbluck@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          You are arguing that Republicans are, ”To busy keeping their job to do their job”. While that may be true in some cases, I fear that for some of them, breaking the Supreme Court like this was the goal all along.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Would need at least some republican support, since they still hold the majority. So, not holding my breath, they tend to stick together.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        No, this is pro forma only. Which doesn’t mean it’s unimportant because it’s about the message. But it will not go anywhere judicially.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        None, but what matters is getting voting records so that later this year or in 2026 during House races, they can show who made an attempt to punish the traitors to our democracy, and who is in full support.

  • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Don’t follow much US politics because yous cunts shoehorn it into every fuckin thread about squirrels, dog food or whatever, but why is that lassie not your president? Instead of the two pish-reeking geriatric cunts you’ve got at the moment

    • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      She will not be the minimum age of 35 until next year and this is ineligible to run for the position till 2028

      Also, we have a racism and sexism issue in this country so it would be an uphill battle.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          She wasn’t eligible last time around, which is why she couldn’t be president now.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            We have an election this year in November. A month after her 35th birthday. She could be the nominee instead of Biden.

      • VieuxQueb@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Soooo, there is a minimum age but not a maximum ?

        Yet cognitive decline starts way earlier than people are willing to admit !

        • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not even 40 yet, but my brain just glasses over reality and sees whatever it is used to seeing.

        • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          LMAO, cognitive decline does not begin in your 30s, but yeah I guess so. There is something to be said about intelligence plus life experience.

      • voracitude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        According to the SCOTUS, being ineligible for the Presidency isn’t a barrier, to running or winning. So I say bring on AOC as the nominee instead of Biden!

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 months ago

      why is that lassie not your president?

      She needs to be about a century older, white, male, sell out to corporations, and shed her sense of ethics.

      Then maybe, if the GOP is running enough of a Nazi.

    • ooli@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      I find somehow telling that US got a black president before it get (if it even go there) a woman president

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s pretty consistent. Black men got the right to vote long before women too. The US has more deep rooted misogyny than racism, and it’s got plenty of racism.

        • nomous@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          Blew my mind when I found out women couldn’t have their own bank accounts in the United states until 1974.

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Technically, she wasn’t old enough to run until this year.

      More practically, we have a center-right party and a fascist party in this country. The center-right party has a few actual leftists in it, but they tend not to gain much power.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      A large chunk of the US is deeply sexist on top of other intellectual and moral failings.

      This is aggravated by the right wing fighting against education, especially when it benefits the general public.

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because as president you serve 4-8 years and then become generally irrelevant. In congress you can serve for decades.

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve always wondered why this is? In our country a previous prime minister remains highly relevant and politically active until they retire, even if that is long after they were in the position. The leader of the current largest opposition party was prime minister for eight years before losing the previous election, and is set to be the opposition’s front runner for PM in the next election in not too long.

        Like, why didn’t e.g. Obama run for a position on the senate after finishing his second term as president? He’s definitely still young enough, even in countries where you don’t need to be a fossil to have political power.

      • homura1650@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The age requirement applies at inauguration. AOC is old enough to run this cycle by a few months.

  • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m willing to bet that even if the two judges were removed tomorrow, the Democrats wouldn’t add any judges because they’d want to “play fair” and not assign someone right before an election.

    • eksb@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It was Mitch McConnell and the Republics that blocked Merrick Garland, not the Democrats.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That is true, but you also have to remember the Democrats BARELY put up a fight against their nonsense because they were SO certain they were going to win in 2016.

        This “Put all our eggs in one basket, the people are too smart to fall for this” crap ALWAYS undoes the Democrats. Every single time.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Shit wasn’t even that long ago and people are already distorting and misremembering it… smh

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          They did in 2020 when they let Trump nominate a justice a month before the election. Obama was denied his appointment because the election was nearly a year away

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You also want that juicy carrot at the end of that stick during an election year. Ensure your voters are going to vote for you or else risking losing your whole democracy.

        • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          4 months ago

          Counter point - you get them installed so they can make meaningful decisions that help the people and then constantly remind the public:

          We did that! We did that! We did that! Vote for us and there will be more of that.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They would. But Democrats don’t have a majority in the Senate, so confirmation won’t happen. Manchin and Sinema are the necessary independents likely to refuse to confirm.

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    And here’s the big fucking shocker. Guess who seated these two into their positions?

    George Fucking Bush.

    Republicans will still blame dems tho. Thanks to their lack of an educational system or ability to think critically or objectively for anyone that has anything to do with their party lines. Keep defunding that education and pushing the norm away from progress, tolerance, and respect for thy neighbor.

    Sycophants.

  • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    4 months ago

    Love to see it. AOC doing great work. To drive turnout, the November election should be about this issue: electoral and judicial reform. We can’t fix this country without it.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    4 months ago

    listen to her speech compared to, say, marjorie green, and how she approaches things passionately and logically with facts to back it up is night and day.

    it’s also a reminder of how marjorie greene is everything to the republicans that they tried to claim aoc would be to the democrats. instead, aoc has become one of the most passionate, analytical, and policy wonk driven politicians in congress.

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      4 months ago

      I always thought it was hilarious how they’d complain that Democrats (especially coastal Democrats) are all “ivory tower elites”, and then mock her for working as a bartender and imply that made her unfit for office.

      Like, make up your mind, assholes.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        They don’t use words to try to find or describe truth. They use words for effect. If saying (or believing) A gets what they want today, and Not-A gets it tomorrow, they will happily switch without any hesitation. Sometimes without any awareness.

        We all are at risk of doing this. But the Republicans have it turned up to 11.

        And because of that, on some fundamental level, they are bad people.

  • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    She needs to force everyone involved to read the Pro Publica piece and call it an executive summary lol

    Hell she should just get the people who worked on that piece to advise

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Of course. It’s pretty much just to get headlines and for people to campaign on. But that’s really all you can hope for when Republicans control the House and won’t actually take up any meaningful oversight.

  • ooli@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wonder how you can spend 500 000$ on an Indonesian trip… are those Indonesian dollars, or are they having coke and hooker every minutes?

    • EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Idk, if I had to guess I’d say probably something like renting out an entire resort for the duration plus whatever they did there.