Yes, that’s kind of the problem at this point, Joe…

If they have to move to the right out of a sense of self preservation that kind of illustrates my point. The existence of NPR only matters in so far as it is able to speak truth to power, it has been steadily losing that ability.

Not really, NPR is a staunch supporter of the neoliberal establishment and function the same as MSNBC or other corporate outlets. They help prop up the corporate right wing of the Democratic party and suppress the center/left.

They’ve failed to elevate any of the very real criticisms of Biden, the only time they host criticism is when he’s moved left even the smallest amount, then they’re all over it.

They’re also extremely susceptible to adopting the political terminology and framing provided by the far-right and seem incapable of recognizing that they’re being played. It’s why they describe the genocide in Gaza as a “war” still, describe people like Manchin as “moderates” and “centrists”, and why they demonize people like Sanders as “the far left”.

It makes people uncomfortable to hear, but NPR is corporate conservative more than it is center/left or even liberal really. They have been instrumental in moving the Overton window to the right, mainly out of political incompetence and self-interest.

Who’s been backing him? Well…you have been, NPR. Religiously no matter what he does.

This interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, meant to be damage control, has only further enraged Democrat politicians and big donors who, since that calamitous Trump debate, have pressed the President to step down.

There is some bitter humor in seeing the party elites get the same stonewalling treatment that the anti-genocide coalition got months ago (which they helped reinforce). Doesn’t feel so great when it’s happening to them too I guess.

Easy question really; the press is no longer a check on our government, it’s largely there to pump out propaganda and studiously ignore anything that threatens the power of the elites classes.

And Democrats were complicit the whole time, ignoring the explicit warning signs in their blind greed for more corporate money.

You’ve made the mistake thinking that this is about democracy and the American people, in reality it’s about his ego and more than a dash of creeping dementia.

The man is living decades in the past. He thinks the GOP and Dems are still working together for the same corporate goals, he thinks hes dealing with Golda Meir’s Israel, he thinks he has 50 years to deal with climate change.

Biden is just out of touch with reality and is too stubborn to listen to anyone telling him he’s about to drive the family van into a crowd of pedestrians because “I’ve been driving for 60 years! I know what I’m doing, stop trying to influence me!”

No, the rest of us know, you don’t know because you haven’t been paying attention. Polling shows Biden losing by almost 10 points. Even Kamala Harris has better numbers.

So if you actually wanted the best chance, you’d be wanting him to step down. But I’m guessing you don’t.

If he was trying to save American democracy he’d step down, this is about his bloated sense of self importance.

He’s going to lose if he runs. He’s the single worst option for Democrats.

It’s not good. Biden stands the worst chance against Trump, which is why concern trolls are so desperate to shut down and dismiss any discussion of replacing him.

Well, that’s on him, and so is his loss and all the consequences that come from it. All to try and satisfy his ego. Insanity.

Removed by mod

“Temporarily” has a pretty consistent habit of becoming permanent. It’s either malicious or extremely naive on Lenin’s part to believe that ypu can concentrate power into the hands of a few people and then they’ll just voluntarily give it up.

Which term is Xi on now at this point again? Oh right, he made himself dictator for life…

Yes, Lenin also prescribed dictatorship. His mindset was inextricable from the imperialist context he lived in, it limited his ability to imagine further. Which is part if why communism has always failed or collapsed into a fascist state capitalism (like China).

Uh, China doesn’t forgive the loans, they seize the assets, that’s the whole point of debt colonialism. They can’t colonize by force and no one trusts them to host their military bases, so they use debt to build a port or whatever and then when the host country can’t keep up on exhorbitant payments they take the port and ta-da, they’ve expanded their geopolitical reach.

China is in a hyper-imperialist push right now.

Yes, what I’m saying is if you can keep the GOP out of power you hobble the supreme court. Like I said, it’s a source of hope and a goal to aim your political effort towards, not a permanent solution.

People downvoting this seem confused. I made the assumption people were able to understand I was talking longer term fight.

Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.

Precedent is literally just a tradition that’s agreed upon, there’s nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.

So in that sense it’s a double-edged sword, it’s just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it’s always been this way.

A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.

But yes, packing the court alone doesn’t guaruntee the court can’t be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:

1. expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that’s just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then

2. Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.

There’s no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we’ve had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there’s no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.