Trump could win it all, thanks to just five votes.
    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      36·
      5 hours ago

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

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    28·
    14 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
    41·
    15 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
      16·
      12 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
      62·
      11 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
        5·
        9 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.

        • BigFatNips@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          11·
          2 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
        42·
        10 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.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            11·
            3 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
                1·
                58 minutes 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.

        • radroot@lemmy.world
          73·
          9 hours ago

          Ah yes, I also remember when the Iraq War protests stopped the invasion. And when Occupy reigned in greed on Wall Street. And in 2016 when Trump was defeated. And in 2020 when we finally ended systemic racism and police brutality.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            31·
            5 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.”

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    1229·
    17 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.

    • ALQ@lemmy.world
      512·
      16 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
        939·
        16 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.

    • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
      19·
      16 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.