Even with the “broad immunity granted by the SCOTUS”, Biden can’t do what you want him to do. Immunity from prosecution does not mean ability to rewrite election laws.

Ambassadors are largely immune to prosecution too, do you think they can rerun our election?

Jack Teixera- the Discord Leaks Guy. After they were discovered, it took all of a week

The leak occurred in 2022, he was indicted in 2023, and he was sentenced in 2024.

And he pled guilty.

Just for comparison, the Feds indicted some random person for selling pirated TV shows in 2019 and didn’t get a conviction until this month. That’s five years, and the SCOTUS wasn’t even helping him drag the case out.

Federal cases take a long time when defendants insist on going to trial and dragging things out.

Zen’s fascists will control you

One hundred percent natural

You will jog for the master race

And always wear the happy face

Close your eyes, can’t happen here

Big bro on white horse is near

The hippies won’t come back, you say

Mellow out or you will pay

Mellow out or you will pay

they’ll vote Republican again.

That’s not how midterms usually work. More people will vote for Democrats in 2026 than 2024. The key is maximize just how many more.

Pundits are losing their minds, but I don’t think the Democratic party leaders are giving up.

My hunch is that they are playing the long game. They are counting on three things. First, Trump’s plans will crash the economy. Second, the Trump White House always turns on its own. Third, with a GOP trifecta there isn’t much Democrats can do to stop Trump - for now.

So any demands they make now will be ignored, and even used in the future to blame Democrats as obstructionist. I think they are lying low and giving the GOP what they need to hang themselves. When the public is furious about the economy, it will be time to start making demands.

Basically, it’s the political equivalent of the Willy Wonka gif

Finally, a Jacobin article I agree with.

Bernie won fewer votes in Vermont, his home state, than Kamala. One of the rare incumbent Democratic Senators who actually underperformed Harris.

Speaking of unsupported assertions, the OP is confidently wrong that Gaza “isn’t even covered”.

The irony of making false statements about media coverage and complaining about false statements in the media.

If you think it’s not covered by the media, then you’re not following the media.

A few observations:

• This won’t be the first time those media outlets have been sued for libel. It’s a common enough occurrence that they keep lawyers around ready to litigate. So this isn’t as chilling as Trump might hope.
• Litigation means discovery. If Trump wants to win, he’ll have to turn over his private records to NYT lawyers. If he refuses then his case will be thrown out.
• Once Trump takes office, it will be harder to pull this kind of crap. Only private individuals can sue for defamation, the government cannot.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Posting memes about the “ruling class”

Won’t help me or you

Simmons argued that this move would keep Harris from having to oversee “her own defeat” when the presidential election is certified in the Senate

If Gore can do it, so can Harris

Same thing that happened every time Bernie tried to run nationwide. Did he take his own advice?

If Kamala were only running in Vermont, she would have won too.

There were more Harris voters in Vermont than Sanders voters. So maybe Bernie should be listening to Kamala.

why you’re trying to get away with not delivering things that progressives want

I’m not doing anything. That’s what I think Democrats should do, if they want to win elections. If Democrats promise too much to progressives, they will inevitably disappoint progressives and lose their support.

I’d argue Obama’s 2008 campaign was too

Obama did exactly what I’m suggesting.

He campaigned not as a progressive, but as someone who would appeal to centrists and even conservatives in order to bring unity. He made just one major promise to progressives, health care reform. For many of them, that was enough. He delivered, by signing a fairly centrist version without a public option. It was derided at the time by leftists but they got over it.

Then he put most of his energy into futile attempts at bipartisanship, hunting down bin Laden, drone strikes, and trying to ignore another major progressive issue, gay marriage.

He was a huge success! Even today he is widely admired. I think future Democrats will try to emulate him.

It wasn’t a losing strategy in the past.

The key for Democrats is to realize that “progressivism” is impossibly broad. So there is no way to deliver on that promise.

However, a candidate who does not identify as “progressive” can still deliver specific promises to progressives. Say, a carbon tax and a trans rights law. And that’s it.

For a progressives who care about climate and/or trans rights, that might be enough to vote for the Democrat. Sure, they aren’t promising UBI or student debt relief or housing or a minimum wage hike. Maybe the other things in their platform are aimed at Latinos and liberals.

But if you actually care about trans rights, why not vote for the Democrat who will deliver that instead of the Republican who offers nothing or the Green who can’t deliver anything?

I think there might be enough progressives who really do care about trans rights and/or climate to make up for losing the ones who only care about UBI. And I think Democrats don’t need every last progressive voter to win.

“You call that UBI?”

Just as I predicted!

Democrats genuinely need progressive votes in order to win

The point is that they do not need a progressive candidate to win. Bill Clinton and Obama weren’t progressive, after all.