Millions of people will ALWAYS opt out of voting. And their reasons will be varied and illegible to you. If you think that voting is in fact important than work to persuade the persuadable to your position.
Some people honestly believe that voting is a tactic and doesn't matter in the larger scheme. Others do believe that it matters. I do find it strange when people attach morality to it in either direction. Fetishizing the vote strikes me as unproductive.
There are hardly any educators or researchers on university boards either. One of my recent service responsibilities involved interacting with a library board composed almost entirely of investment bankers, pharmaceutical + biotech executives, and real estate developers.
Exactly. They are laying the infrastructure to generate an endless stream of "evidence" that can be twisted into their false claims of a "rigged election". Social and partisan media dynamics are already optimized to quickly assemble, synthesize, and amplify this content.
"Trump has told his strategists to focus not just on canvassing efforts but on a 175,000-volunteer 'election integrity' monitoring program that does not directly drive voters to the polls." wapo.st/3XQJDZD
She spends three times as much, employs hundreds more staff and dominates the ad war. But the race is effectively tied.
this is the thing that really keeps me up at night, speaking of ādanger to the rest of the world from a completely unleashed second Trump administrationā
If both parties went off the rails into paranoia, voters in both parties would call the other party a danger to society. But if one party went off the rails while the other remained within normal range, voters in both parties would still call the other party a danger to society.
another reminder that Trump v. US is an abomination and very easily the worst Supreme Court decision since at least Plessy.
His latest brief in the January 6 case inadvertently suggests how a future President Trump could cling to power through āofficialā acts.
Anything this š¤” gets in exchange for his endorsement and money almost certainly would make everyday peopleās lives worse, so be prepared to fight those policies like hell once we win this election.
ah yes, what is worse? passing a law through congress to add more seats to the supreme court ā as per congressā explicitly stated constitutional authority ā or a violent coup to overturn the constitutional order?
The whole thing with this is that packing the supreme court *would be* a partisan move against an ostensibly independent body notionally about the rule of law. It is valid as a tactic *because* it has already been packed and already stopped being an independent body notionally about the rule of law.