“If Biden wins, the bipartisan consensus is reaffirmed, while if Trump somehow prevails, the bipartisan will be further weakened”.
Excellent point. That is the goal, to kill the bipartisan consensus. To stop the now not-so-slow rot of our same-old-same-old march towards fascism.
Given our LOTE choice of either descending into fascism via rocket (trump) or Amtrak (Biden), weakening the bipartisan consensus is a good thing - it’s the only thing that might allow for a 3rd party to form successfully (if that’s even possible within our corrupt system).
So long as the senate and house are controlled by progressive candidates - I see 4 years of stalemate in Washington as the most preferable outcome.
Besides, Biden has indicated he’s “not a fan” of court packing.
Bernie, a genuine populist, would have wiped the floor with Trump, a faux populist, in 2016. Thanks to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC we have had four years of unmitigated hell because the centrists “know” best. Bull-fucking-shit.
Agree. Has Harris been asked this question?
I’m hoping Biden is being intentionally vague as the issue is very contentious. Of course it was brilliant that repubs shifted the focus of their ramming through ACB to now dems potentially packing the court.
Re: Biden being vague—I still believe his cognitive abilities are weak at best and will just get worse as time goes on. I’m surprised he has held it together as well as he has.
I’m trying to fully understand the procedure for adding seats should dems control the house and senate.
If Congress wanted to change the size of the court, it could, with a president willing to approve it or enough support to override a veto.
“There’s nothing in the Constitution that limits the size of the Supreme Court,” Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, told USA TODAY. “It’s fluctuated over time.”
The Supreme Court’s website says, “The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates.”
I was laughing by the time finished this article.
The ridiculous fantasy that the democrats and the republicans are two sides of a
bipartisan consensus which is moving toward “the middle” is so far removed from reality
that I had to laugh at the way this reinforces the continuing rightward movement.
I do not find this funny, but when you are encouraged to stay within a burning vehicle,
which is loaded with weapons (material and psychological),
because there is a chance to replace a lying, racist, murderous chauffeur with a
chauffeur who is a known murderous liar who may be less racist (and may drive slower),
the absurdity of such stupidity should not be presented as if it is responsible behavior.
The beliefs expressed in this article are a punchline to a worn-out joke and they are
an indication that the person is too comfortably positioned within a class which can
overlook the real effects of their lifestyle. Good intentions and the path to Hell.
Trump and Biden are a singular campaign, just as was Trump and Clinton in 2016.
Neither candidate will lose to any significant extent when compared to the millions of
other people around the planet and the environment as they will continue to be debauched
by the “bipartisan” facade’s shared worship of capital over all else.
Get the Hell out of the vehicle and help others get out of its path.
I can’t get past the gobbldy-crap of "bipartisan consensus. If Biden wins, it’s more hollow neoliberalism that has eviscerated our working class and our biosphere. If Trump wins fascism will be more obvious and brutal. I’m voting against Trump as a matter of short-term survival but if we want to defeat fascism, we have to defeat corporate rule.
It is grimly fascinating to watch autocracy advance in the United States. Falk’s article here is revealing.
Bipartisan consensus is the death of alternative. It comes to us from the usurpation of the major parties and the manipulations of the election processes by moneyed interests. Policies become “bipartisan” because they serve those interests. Since 1992, this is most notable in the infiltration of the one-time Democratic party of FDR, JFK, and LBJ by neoliberal cum neoconservative interests, if only because these interests had largely occupied the Republican party since Hoover.
This is not exactly the old-time fascism of Mussolini and Hitler, whose easy demonification shadows their resemblance to more favored leaders. Neither is it exactly the banana republic constructions of oil producers and of 20th and 21st century Latin America, though this is closer.
It is tempting to read Falk as favoring bipartisan consensus as he explains these circumstances, apparently dispassionately, to an Iranian journalist. But his concluding sentences about the identity of the Democratic Party present a strong argument for not voting Biden. He is mistaken about where the “political center” is if he imagines that this has to do with the opinions of the population, but otherwise, this is exceptionally sharp:
If Biden loses, the consensus will be further discredited by its mistaken view that moving toward the political center is what wins election. What evidence exists by polls and other measurements of public opinion suggest that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate than Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020, but for reasons suggested above, adhering to the bipartisan consensus was more important or Democrats than winning elections.
The “bipartisan consensus”: the plutocracy owns this country and the plebes can fuck off.
A vote for either one of these non-choices is merely an acquiescence to the obvious underlying condition that the system is rigged, and we are not allowed to have a choice.
Here, push this button that you have no idea whether or not properly records your “choice” (and you have no way to verify one way or the other), and thereby endorse the unwritten contract that you will abide by the rules of the game and accept the result inflicted upon you.
Thank you sir, may I have another.
The idea that there is a movement to “the center” when the real movement has been
continuously (for the past 40 year especially) to the right is also possibly a vindication of
the tens of millions of people who do not vote.
The republicans are the front edge of the blade of the self-loathing right-ness
and the democrats have increasingly insisted that it is only pragmatic to align and
moved with them. The supposed center has been left behind and the
acquiescent non-participation could be the only remaining, unenthusiastic
vestige of a desire for integrity.
The corporatized labels claim unwarranted benefits for their junk-food
and (at least some of) the non-participants know what the real ingredients are.
He got the last part of the headline correct. It isn’t about Democracy, Its About Fascism.
The bipartisan consensus is precisely what needs to obliterated.
The ever-brilliant, Caitlin Johnstone, summed it up a few days back: