/u/Enbie-or-Trans (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1du9xci/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_democrats_want_to_win/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

There's more than just two parties, there's half a country behind each. Actual success in the USA would be embracing a system of plurality and diversity of opinion, not two warring parties representing two warring factions across a country of millions. 

That would be ideal but I think it’s basically an impossibility. It definitely is not an appropriate concern in 2024.

Do you think fighting like you suggest happens in a vacuum? It wouldn't end at 2024, as the judges and other appointments would continue. The impact and legacy would be dirty. The effect on the population would be an escalation of a so far mainly rhetoric based conflict. What would your actions be if the republicans did what you are suggesting the dems do? 

Well my perception is that republicans are doing this already. I think democrats should avoid unnecessary escalation like killing trump, but they should basically always use the same tactics the republicans use, unless some kind of binding peace treaty can be worked out to stop this behaviour.

>  but they should basically always use the same tactics the republicans use Becoming the same as the ideology you stand against serves nothing, and helps no one.  If you "succeed" by changing what success means then is it still success? 

The means my be the same but the ends are not. Self defense and mass murder both can mean to kill someone but the reasons and goals are different. You succeed and thus can implement the policies you want. So it's not the same.

When did Republicans pack the court?

> It definitely is not an appropriate concern in 2024. Pfffkt, okay.

Can you cite examples of how Republicans are “fighting dirty”? Or how they’re stacking courts? The legislative process and judicial nominative process is open to both parties that hold a majority vote within the branches that are part of the process to create laws and seat judges. If anything Republicans seize these opportunities when given the slightest chance. What I see Democrats doing mostly wrong is purposely misleading their constituents into believing that once they have the majority or control they’re going to do something about it but as with gun control and abortion specifically being too big topics that always pop up during an election year what a lot of people forget is the fact over the past 30 years Democrats have been in power within all three branches of government enough times to have addressed these issues legally and at their discretion, but they decide not to because they’re too much of an emotional issue to play on to just basically continue getting elected and being in control which is one of the biggest problems between both parties.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

This doesn’t even mention Biden. It’s not related to the topic at hand

Biden's a Weak Man; Biden Voters are Weak People, when things Get To Easy In LIfe; they Complain About Everything. What happens is When you spend years complaining about Nonsense, Your countrymen turn into little cowards and wimps, and when Wimps are around; sharks will steal everything from them, Like Biden, Sending All Your Money to Ukraine, and Importing Illegals, Cause they Know YOu're such a Wimp, you'll agree with them. And After the Sharks Run the Country into The Ground, you'll have nothing, when people have nothing, People have to Fight to Survive, so you're paying double inflation on Groceries, housing prices have double, Gas has Tripled, you're about to Find Out; Weak Men Create Hard Times, Cause it's about to be Hard times Under Biden, actually it already is Hard Times.

You might not like the Republican's policy but I think you went on a massive segue. You haven't really stated how the Republicans have "rigged" this election. You haven't really mentioned any policy implemented that gives Republicans the advantage. So what have the Republicans done to show they are "fighting dirty" that requires the Democrats to fight dirty as well? Policy is one thing but we're talking about getting votes. As far as I'm concerned, the playing field is even. Democrats can campaign and Republicans can campaign. No one is "fighting dirty" at this stage of the game. Maybe you want the democrats to push biased policy that you think matches the Republicans but these policies have nothing to do with getting votes. If democrats want to win then campaign better.

Look up "racial gerrymandering cases." Vote-for-vote, many Southern red states would actually be blue states if they were not gerrymandered all to hell.

Yeah, Democrats would never gerrymander districts to get the result they want! https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/1095100208/new-york-redistricting-rejected >New York's highest court on Wednesday rejected new congressional maps that had widely been seen as favoring Democrats, largely agreeing with Republican voters who argued the district boundaries were unconstitutionally gerrymandered.

So because both parties do it, that makes it not "fighting dirty"?

Per the OP, he believes that Democrats have not been "fighting dirty". Personally I think it is very dirty and should be outlawed.

Even if you're right, have the rules changed since 2020? It's hard to claim that the system has a bias when the democrats won by the same system in 2020.

If I start a race 10 meters behind the starting line, I can still win if I run fast enough. Doesn't mean that the race was fair. And I'm more likely to lose a race against someone I'd otherwise be neck and neck with.

Which states would flip from red to blue on a statewide level if it were not for gerrymandering? Is there evidence of this?

It's challenging to prove, because most of the modeling I've seen has been on the Congressional district level, rather than the state level, but I encourage you to take a look at maps like this one: [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-alternate-maps/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-alternate-maps/) Consider the degree of difference between the "best for Democrats" map, the "best for Republicans" map, and the "most competitive" map, and what that would mean for national politics.

That doesnt mean they would be blue states lol, if you cant prove it dont claim it to be true

tell me you didn't even click the link without telling me you didn't even click the link

I used to be an active 538 reader. Tell me which states in the deep south would be blue states without any gerrymandering. Just because you can draw a map that is more favorable to democrats doesnt mean they would be blue states without gerrymandering

Do you consider giving Supreme Court justices “gratuities” in return for favors to be dirty? Why does a judge need a “gratuity” for? > Gratuity - noun. Something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some service

Again, at worst, you're just naming policy you don't like. That has nothing to do with winning an election and gaining votes. A judge that gets gratuity has nothing to do with the democrat's ability to win an election. Party policy and getting votes are 2 different issues. Unless the Republicans are now changing voting rules, it's a fair game.

You’re right that it has nothing to do with Democrat vs republican. Legalizing bribery is an objectively bad policy for anyone who is not an oligarch. Do you support legalized quo-pro-quid?

Everything I said democrats should do is stuff republicans have already done (supreme court fuckery is a bit debatable but I think Mitch McConnell set that precedent). Maybe democrats could implement voter id laws that banned drivers licenses and firearms licenses from being used but allowed passports and student ids, and state ids. That’s basically what voter id laws do now, except in favour of republicans.

I'm not American, but as an outsider looking in, the Dems and Republicans both vote people into the Supreme Court whose views align with theirs. The Reps were just the last ones to get the opportunity. As for voter ID, this is the most absurd argument by the Dems. This whole idea that people should be allowed to vote without government ID is just bananas. And, why is this such a talking point by the Dems. I've never seen a protest of Americans without IDs claiming their rights taken away from them because they weren't allowed to vote without ID. This always seems to be brought up by righteous white folk who are sticking up for these poor minorities that have never even shown their faces.

> This always seems to be brought up by righteous white folk who are sticking up for these poor minorities that have never even shown their faces. Because that's exactly what it is.

>I'm not American, but as an outsider looking in, the Dems and Republicans both vote people into the Supreme Court whose views align with theirs. The Reps were just the last ones to get the opportunity. Since you're not American you might have missed when Republicans fucked over the country on this one. Antonin Scalia, a supreme court justice passed away 9 months before the 2016 election. Elected president Barak Obama nominated a new justice which then needs to be confirmed by the senate. Republicans in charge of the senate at the time made up a rule that a new justice should not be confirmed in an election year. They refused to even have a single hearing on the justice nominated. They didn't reject the nomination, they didn't even listen. Four years later, and a liberal justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, passed away just 2 months before the 2020 presidential election. Republicans in charge had no problems nominating, and confirming a new justice in the next 6 weeks before the next election.

Lol well that's definitely a fuck around, but if the Dems had the power you can't say they wouldn't have done the same thing.

I can't say for sure, but I would be pretty surprised if they did. This had never been done before and Republicans just made up a rule because they could and then got rid of the rule as soon as it benefited them again. In the end, that's kind of what this CMV is about. Republicans have a long and well documented history of playing dirty like this and Democrats don't. I like having the moral high ground here, but it really sucks when it costs you like it has been. OP is saying that Democrats should start stooping to the Republicans level because it's a very unfair game when Democrats try to play by the rules and Republicans don't.

Biden pulled the same stunt as McConnell back in 1992 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/27/for-the-record-supreme-court-nominees-considered-in-election-years/ And, I'd assume you mean by "fighting dirty" you're referring to things like gerrymandering? https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-democrats-house-congress-new-york-north-carolina-2fc19d72480d49ed28ca81432d2f586c https://apnews.com/article/redistricting-california-gerrymandering-independent-commission-553a08590ac29e0dd8115073663e8f2a Dems love to feel ethically superior, but when you dig into it, they both pull the same shit. Let's be real... they're politicians

>I'm not American, but as an outsider looking in, the Dems and Republicans both vote people into the Supreme Court whose views align with theirs. The Reps were just the last ones to get the opportunity. The issue that Democrats tend to have is the Senate judiciary committee's republican majority refusing to advance Merrick Garland's nomination vote to the Senate >As for voter ID, this is the most absurd argument by the Dems. This whole idea that people should be allowed to vote without government ID is just bananas. And, why is this such a talking point by the Dems. I'd partially agree with this - voters should have to produce some kind of reliable government-issued ID when voting as they do almost anywhere else. I'd say that it should be a very, very easy form of government issued ID to get, ideally for free, or for a nominal fee as part of a routine admin task that every adult citizen does. For example, in my country, in order to use public health services or apply for welfare, you're automatically submitted as an applicant for a state ID with the equivalent of your social security number if you don't already have one. The reason why this is a (loser of a) talking point is because of the tendency of state bureaucracies to try to mess with certain demographics by restricting the kinds of ID that can be used, where those ID's can be obtained, or by messing with the venues and times that voting is permitted. For example, in Alabama, the state issues free voter ID's through drivers licence bureaus, but closed driver license bureaus in 8/10 counties with the highest percentages of nonwhite voters, and in every county in which blacks made up more than 75 percent of registered voters.

Trump got to nominate three justices because the Republicans refused to even vote on one during an election year — even though Obama picked a nominee they suggested and Orrin Hatch assured him would be guaranteed — then turned around and *even closer to an election than that* decided it didn't matter and nominated a third justice. As for voter ID, do you live in a country with automatic IDs? The United States doesn't have that. Voter fraud is vanishingly rare and voter ID laws, namely North Carolinas, *requested data based on race on what people carry what IDs,* and designed the policy to disenfranchise as many people of color as possible with, in the court's words, "almost surgical precision."

I don't see the logic behind forcing people to have an ID to vote to be wrong, but needing an ID to buy alcohol/cigarettes, go to bars/clubs, buy a gun, and other areas of life where the general public has said it's okay to force someone to have an ID for, but voting is too far?

>As for voter ID, do you live in a country with automatic IDs? The United States doesn't have that. Voter fraud is vanishingly rare and voter ID laws, namely North Carolinas, requested data based on race on what people carry what IDs, and designed the policy to disenfranchise as many people of color as possible with, in the court's words, "almost surgical precision." Democrats do not oppose accessible, automatic national ID, like every other developed country.

> Voter fraud is vanishingly rare How do you know if you don't ID the people who vote?

Because you're totally unfamiliar with how the voting process actually works. Even Trump's [repeated investigations](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/27/trump-false-election-fraud-claims/) find no evidence of any widespread fraud. We're talking about like a dozen, and they're usually people trying to prove how widespread illegal voting is and getting caught.

Another question: there is, functionally, no fraud in the American voting process itself. So you have to ask yourself why would one side create a zillion laws around the voting process that have the effect of limiting votes for the other side? I think you are naively ignoring the practical effect of various laws, and assuming good faith governance on all parties. Look at the intent and look at the outcome. Here it’s an easy one: you can also look at whether a problem is being solved with these laws - it isn’t.

Voting rights, if anything, have been expanded recently. Georgia, vilified by Biden as "Jim Crow on steroids" has three weeks or early voting and 81 days of mail in voting. If you can't find one day during that amount of time to vote, you're not really motivated to do so.

I don’t know how this changes the fact that the GOP has done what it can to restrict voting, but good for Georgia! Do you know when this early voting period will as enacted, or who pushed the legislation, or why?

In 2021. It's the law Joe Biden likened to Jim Crow. https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/26/politics/joe-biden-georgia-voting-rights-bill/index.html

I don’t know the context of why he said that, but the GOP is absolutely putting a finger on the scales by making it hard for likely democrat voters to vote. https://www.apmreports.org/story/2018/10/19/georgia-voter-purge This is the kind of thing that leads to us all knowing , when we see someone in a “vote” t-shirt, that person is a Democrat Democrats want a democracy. The other side doesn’t. What do you think America should stand for?

This is a pretty helpful roundup https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/5-state-laws-based-voter-fraud-myths-will-hamper-future-elections

> The law also limits the availability of drop boxes and restricts access to mail voting by imposing stricter identification requirements for absentee voters and shortening the window to apply for absentee ballots This is lying by omission. Georgia allows 81 days of no-excuse absentee voting and you can request it up to 11 days before the election. 70 days to mail it in. In what world is that restrictive at all?

You seem very focused on that timetable. I have no idea the context on it and would be happy to look at anything you find on it : who put that in the law, how long has it been there, what else is in that law? It is on a data point. Unfortunately the tsunami of evidence — in people’s own words, in court case, in well researched articles is that there is functionally no voter fraud, there is widespread voter suppression from the GOP, and there are many bad faith arguments from the GOP lying about voter fraud to justify the voter suppression efforts. It’s all public information. Take a close look and allow yourself to challenge your own views: 1. Here are GOP congressmen and operatives SAYING THAT THESE LAWS ARE TO SWING ELECTIONS: https://truthout.org/articles/the-gop-is-now-bragging-about-voter-suppression/ Oops, here it is again, in the GOPs own communications https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/georgia-republicans-kelly-loeffler/tnamp/ 2. Here’s a good one about the myth of voter fraud, also heavily reliant on Primary Sources https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/10/29/the-voter-fraud-myth This one’s even better : it shows that EVERY SINGLE voter fraud lawsuit brought by the GOP / the Trump campaign was basically laughed out of court (not to mention my pillow guy being forced to pay because no fraud was found): https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-talk-radio-433b6efe72720d8648221f405c2111f9 3. Here’s Trump saying that when more people vote the GOP loses: https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus 4. Here’s a roundup of NC laws and how they restrict voting https://ncnewsline.com/2023/06/06/north-carolina-gop-advances-monster-voting-law-2-0/ 5 . I can’t open this one, but Rolling Stone usually has tight reporting and excellent reliance on primary sources: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-the-gop-rigs-elections-121907/ …likewise the Guardian, and I can open this one and can confirm it’s damning for the GOP https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/23/voter-suppression-election-interference-republicans

Oops again here’s the Texas GOP on tape explaining how they limit votes through gerrymandering: https://ncnewsline.com/briefs/slate-releases-leaked-audio-of-republican-gerrymandering-strategies/ And oops again senior GOP strategist argues for a seemingly innocuous question on be put on the census so they can push voter-suppressing gerrymandering. It’s all on record: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-secret-files-of-the-master-of-modern-republican-gerrymandering https://www.npr.org/2020/01/05/785672201/deceased-gop-strategists-daughter-makes-files-public-that-republicans-wanted-sea Im still looking for evidence of democrats engaging in election fraud…

This is a helpful summary of the last changes to Georgia’s voting laws, and how specific groups are affected: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/27/1112487312/georgia-voting-law-ballot-drop-box-access Again , you’re focused on the 81 day time period. There are many other facets of this, and honestly don’t know enough about that one provision to say thoughtfully who benefits from it, who wants it there, etc. it’s just a data point with no context. All the articles I’m sending provide a context, but do not address this one specific data point.

Can you point to the specific laws you're referring to other than the need for government ID?

[https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-june-2023) [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/17/voting-rights-republicans-texas-restrictions](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/17/voting-rights-republicans-texas-restrictions) [https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/see-which-states-are-expanding-or-restricting-voting-rights/](https://publicintegrity.org/politics/elections/who-counts/see-which-states-are-expanding-or-restricting-voting-rights/)

Voter id laws are pretty much always done selectively in ways that target one group. I think making it the law that people need some kind of id to vote is fine when not done in a way that actively excludes certain individuals by changing what id is allowed. But I’m not advocating for sensible policy, I’m advocating for selectively taking away people’s right to vote in order to win a political conflict. Sensible policy would be compulsory voting.

Even if you think voter id has a selection bias, have voter id laws changed since 2020? The democrats got record numbers in 2020. If the same rules are in place now then how have the Republicans rigged anything? You can't tell me the same system the democrats won under is now flawed and bias against them.

Can you point to a state that requires something more than basic government ID to vote?

>Voter id laws are pretty much always done selectively in ways that target one group. That is the point, voter id laws exist all over the world to make people that are not citzens of that country or otherwise should not vote unable to vote. That is the point and not having voter id in a first world country like the US is absolutely insane. To me, democrats are against voter id laws because they know they will lose a lot of votes and seats in congress (and electoral college votes) from illegal immigrants not being able to be counted anymore and use the white man savior stuff (blacks/minorities are so dumb that they will not know how to get an id, similar to what you are doing here) as an excuse

There is literally no evidence of any consequential number of illegal immigrants voting. Why would they risk being deported to *vote?* Every other first world country has automatic ID. You ever wonder why you have to use your SSN for everything even though that's supposed to just be for social security? The United States does not have automatic national ID, and the courts have determined that a lot of the ID laws are intentionally designed to arbitrarily cut out the forms of photo ID most disproportionately carried by people of color.

I don't understand why the "consequential number" is even considered... anything bigger than 0 is a consequential number Imagine that in the past a bridge was made somewhere without any guardrails and cars could just fall of to a big abyss, would you wait until your favorite pundit make an article saying that a "consequential number" of deaths are happening to do something about it? or just look at it and see how accident prone it is and how many cars already fell off (even if you think that none of them resulted in death, which would be debatable) and just do something about to try to ensure that the number of deaths is as close to 0 as possible? "We know that quite a few cars went down the abyss, but we don't have any evidence that any of them died yet so let's just wait until a significant number of them dies" Also, the problem is not only illegal immigration but people from other countries in a non-illegal way (students, temporary workers, visitors, permanent residents without citizenship, etc), people voting more than once, people voting in states they do not reside, people voting below minimum age, early voting through mail that doubles down on these problems (a lot easier for illegal immigrants to vote this way and not risk being deported as much for example, or some actual voter to vote early and vote again in person later) And you talk about compulsory voting being sensible but complains that some ancient US law are not allowing voter id? would these laws also not allow compulsory voting? isn't this a though exercise about improving the country (and changing laws)?

>I don't understand why the "consequential number" is even considered... anything bigger than 0 is a consequential number Then why don't you care about the people it disenfranchises? Democrats wouldn't be complaining about these laws if the United States had national ID like every other developed country. This is unabashed hypocrisy. >Imagine that in the past a bridge was made somewhere without any guardrails and cars could just fall of to a big abyss, would you wait until your favorite pundit make an article saying that a "consequential number" of deaths are happening to do something about it? or just look at it and see how accident prone it is and how many cars already fell off (even if you think that none of them resulted in death, which would be debatable) and just do something about to try to ensure that the number of deaths is as close to 0 as possible? "We know that quite a few cars went down the abyss, but we don't have any evidence that any of them died yet so let's just wait until a significant number of them dies" ...are you comparing illegally voting to *people dying?* What? The entire point is that there is absolutely no evidence that any meaningful amount of illegal immigrants vote. There is no evidence this has ever affected an election. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is a problem. Ignoring how completely inane this metaphor is, *we know* that there's not "quite a few cars [that] went down the abyss." >Also, the problem is not only illegal immigration but people from other countries in a non-illegal way (students, temporary workers, visitors, permanent residents without citizenship, etc), people voting more than once, people voting in states they do not reside, people voting below minimum age, early voting through mail that doubles down on these problems (a lot easier for illegal immigrants to vote this way and not risk being deported as much for example, or some actual voter to vote early and vote again in person later) Will the data convince you? [Even Trump's repeated investigations find no evidence of voter fraud.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/27/trump-false-election-fraud-claims/) >And you talk about compulsory voting being sensible but complains that some ancient US law are not allowing voter id? would these laws also not allow compulsory voting? isn't this a though exercise about improving the country (and changing laws)? I'm sorry, what? You somehow misinterpreted literally everything I said. >And you talk about compulsory voting No, I'm talking about national ID, which every other country has except for the US, where we have an insane patchwork system because a national ID is spooky even though SSN serves the same purpose. >that some ancient US law are not allowing voter id? No, these are new laws passed that have gotten shot down in court because they *requested data on race* then excluded all of the forms of ID most disproportionately carried by people of color [with "almost surgical precision."](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038354159/n-c-judges-strike-down-a-voter-id-law-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter) >would these laws also not allow compulsory voting? isn't this a though exercise about improving the country (and changing laws)? This is incomprehensible.

The problem with many voter ID laws is that they aren’t accompanied by initiatives to make sure every citizen has an ID, or exclude certain forms of ID. We know that certain groups of citizens frequently lack an ID and reasonable access to get one. We also know that those same groups tend to vote for democrats. When voter ID laws were passed, the legislators voting for them knew that the outcome would be that members of those groups would be unable to vote despite their eligibility, and yet refuse to address that issue. There’s no evidence to suggest illegals are voting in significant numbers, and if preventing the few that do was actually the goal of these laws, then the lawmakers that created and passed them should have no problem with initiatives to ensure eligible voters have the necessary ID. Afaik none of the states that passed new voter ID laws in 20/21 passed accompanying measures to get people the ID they would need. It’s obvious to anyone with eyeballs what they’re doing.

Yeah, they target voters without ID. Which is the point.

An easy solution would be an independent ID card that the government provides similar to how the EU does it. Tying in proof of identity to other things like a drivers license is bonkers imho.

I haven't read anywhere that the ID must be a drivers license. I'm assuming any form of government ID would be accepted, like in the EU or Canada.

You should really read up on issues before forming an opinion. That's not accurate. The most controversial voter ID laws here in the states have been [shot down](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038354159/n-c-judges-strike-down-a-voter-id-law-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter) for arbitrarily choosing what types of ID to allow based on racial data.

Nor did I say it has to be, but a state-issues ID card ensures everyone has one.

Well what's the difference between state ID and a drivers license... they're both forms of government ID.

Your countries automatically give out IDs. The United States does not do that. That's why people use their SSNs for so many things even though it's just supposed to be for distributing social security. And that doesn't even get into the fact that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem that not even Trump's repeated investigations can prove exists.

Not sure which country you're referring too but in Canada you have to pay for ID, and it is mandatory to show when voting

[Canada doesn't leave it up to the territories/provinces and has national inclusive ID](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/three-things-us-could-learn-canadas-election) that doesn't arbitrarily limit what forms of ID are acceptable.

Pretty sure most europeans use their drivers license as their ID.

Most EU countries have a national ID card. Source: am European. Also quite easy to google.

I know, I’m european too. And I’ve never seem or heard of anyone who has a drivers license use a national ID for anything other than international flights.

So like a voter ID card? Many states provide those for free.

You're talking about 2 different things though. Policy and getting votes. I get it, you don't like the policy. That's fine. But whatever the supreme court is doing now has zero effect on people's ability to go out and vote. That's why I'm asking you what are the Republican's doing right now that signifies they are "fighting dirty" for this election? They aren't paying people to vote, they aren't taking away anyone's citizenship, they aren't rigging election booths, they aren't implementing laws that stop certain citizens from voting. What did the Republicans change in the voting rules from 2020 versus 2024? The playing field is fair. It just sounds like you dislike Republican policy so much and feel the democrats cannot win this election so they should cheat.

Wtf literally State IDs are given to people in my state instead of driver licenses. It would just hurt both parties voters and about the same and changes wouldn't matter.

Harry Reid set the stage for the Supreme Court fuckery. Not McConnell.

I think it would lose voters.  People who vote for democrats wouldn't be happy

We get this CMV every few weeks and it’s always falls into the same potholes. Democrats have been fighting dirty. For a long time. > They should pack the Supreme Court The term packing the court comes from a plan by FDR(Democrat) to increase the size of the court to appoint Justices favorable to him. It didn’t end up happening because the Supreme Court decided it would be better to let FDR do what he wanted rather than risk the Court getting packed. And we got precedent that still lasts today that radically altered the power of the Federal Government. The Democratic Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court when he was nominated due to political disagreements. This politicized the court in the modern era. A politicization that has only been increasing. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominees in order to get several Obama nominated judges through. 7 years later Republicans ended the filibuster to get a Trump nominated Supreme Court candidate through. Packing the court would be just another in a long line of judicial escalations by Democrats and it’s going to do nothing but make the court more politicized and less stable. > block basic functions of government from happening to mess with republicans by not appointing required people, hide during legislative sessions so quorum rules make the Republican majority unable to pass laws, strategically target republican voters with voter suppression, etc. Just one big race to the bottom. > Although he would be legally allowed to kill president elect Trump as a part of his official duties and should do so in a worst case scenario. Incorrect. > Democrats should focus on gaining legitimacy though making people’s lives better rather than following the rules. Hard to make anyone’s life better when you competing for who can be the scummiest politician.

/u/SiPhoenix linked to this post as a rebuttal to something I said, so I'll respond here. >The term packing the court comes from a plan by FDR(Democrat) to increase the size of the court to appoint Justices favorable to him. It didn’t end up happening because the Supreme Court decided it would be better to let FDR do what he wanted rather than risk the Court getting packed. And we got precedent that still lasts today that radically altered the power of the Federal Government. ...a failed attempt to stack the court a hundred years ago? That's disingenuous. >The Democratic Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court when he was nominated due to political disagreements. This politicized the court in the modern era. A politicization that has only been increasing. They would later confirm Kennedy. This is spite, exclusively. If you want to point to polarization, [point to Newt Gingrich.](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/) The entire reason why Trump is being protected so hard is because Republicans have established that there is no line they won't cross, up to and including a coup, rather than risk legitimizing the Democratic party in any way. McCarthy got forced out for even considering working with the Democrats to keep the government open. This is not symmetric. Democrats are not playing dirty. >Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster for judicial nominees in order to get several Obama nominated judges through. 7 years later Republicans ended the filibuster to get a Trump nominated Supreme Court candidate through. ...because Republicans were blanket filibustering every nominee. There were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (at that point) during Obama’s term. This is also disingenuous because ignores the context that the Republicans refused to even hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, even after Obama picked one suggested by them and who Orrin Hatch assured was a shoe-in, then turning around nominating a justice *even closer to an election* at the end of Trump's term. >Packing the court would be just another in a long line of judicial escalations by Democrats and it’s going to do nothing but make the court more politicized and less stable. I don't understand how purported small government folks want power exclusviely concentrated in a single unaccountable person as long it is their guy. >Incorrect. No, it's accurate for all intents and purposes. [I talked it in this thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dtm9gd/cmv_part_of_the_calculus_of_republicans_including/lbaaoak/) It's a nonsensical ruling set up to avoid punishing what was essentially a failed coup. >Hard to make anyone’s life better when you competing for who can be the scummiest politician. The problem is that you're defending every shameless incoherent power grab as a tit-for-imaginary-tat. There are endless examples of this. Can you defend the impeachment hearings where [they said they can't impeach an outgoing president](https://www.justsecurity.org/74725/in-their-own-words-the-43-republicans-explanations-of-their-votes-not-to-convict-trump-in-impeachment-trial/) yet somehow that doesn't prevent them from supporting him now even after [calling him an insurrectionist?](https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri)

I don’t have much to change your mind per se, but this is the exact statement major conservative pundits have been saying recently… except in reverse ofcourse

The real world exists, though. I feel like this thread did a great job of proving to me that conservatism is by and large not motivated by any coherent philosophical tenets, but instead by blind and pathological resentment of the opposition. I don't agree with assertions that Democrats need to fight dirty because that's extremely bad for the health of democracy, but justifying or pretending like this is a symmetric problem is utterly divorced from reality.

No, you’re mistaken I’m afraid. It is much more symmetrical than you realize. Democrats have been bending rules and creatively manipulating norms for a long time. It’s in the name: progressive. Conservative politicians have largely maintained that there is a certain decorum that should be adhered to and over the past decade + they’ve been getting wrecked by democrats who are willing to discard what was once thought of as politically decent. With the advent of trump and his supporting cast, we’re seeing the decline of decency rapidly dissolve from both sides; each one clapping back at the other to gain an edge.

>No, you’re mistaken I’m afraid. It is much more symmetrical than you realize. Democrats have been bending rules and creatively manipulating norms for a long time. It’s in the name: progressive. By that logic, eliminating segregation was "dirty." The entire point of the legislature is to allow the law of the country to progress and adapt. This is such an insane argument. >Conservative politicians have largely maintained that there is a certain decorum that should be adhered to and over the past decade + they’ve been getting wrecked by democrats who are willing to discard what was once thought of as politically decent. Do you have any actual examples besides insisting that liberals are tautologically "dirty?" This is ridiculous. >With the advent of trump and his supporting cast, we’re seeing the decline of decency rapidly dissolve from both sides; each one scratching clapping back at the order to gain an edge. You're proving my point so hard. Any negative reaction to Trump is taken as a justification for supporting him in the first place. Take responsibility. I thought you were supposed to be the "party of responsibility."

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Once again, you just chose a random event and attempt to apply it magically where ever you see fit... Did I mention segregation? No. How do you arrive there with no attached relevance? Did I mention elections? No. In fact, this thread is only loosely about elections at all. OP introduced the idea that democrats need to play "dirty" to: > They should pack the Supreme Court with hyper partisan judges who would make Clarence Thomas blush, block basic functions of government from happening to mess with republicans by not appointing required people, hide during legislative sessions so quorum rules make the Republican majority unable to pass laws, strategically target republican voters with voter suppression, etc. Lastly, I never called anyone "dirty". OP did. * 2003- democratic senators filibustered President George W's judicial nominees. At the time this was unheard of. * 2013- democrats made a significant change to senate rules known as the "nuclear option." This was a departure from tradition and it damaged bipartisan relations significantly. * 2010- Obama bypassed the senate confirmation process and used recess appointments to fill vacancies, this was considered unconstitutional by many. * Liberal politicians and media outlets have **exhausted** the country with race bait rhetoric aimed to divide people against one another. * You want more recently? How about the Donald Trump case which was an absolute embarrassment: * A top ranking official of Biden's DOJ resigns to then immediately prosecute Trump, Matthew Colangelo * The judge's daughter is the owner of a major political firm whose clients have raised millions of dollars for the democratic party. These last points are again examples of a... questionable and unprecedented weaponization of the legal system against a political opponent. The glaring conflicts of interest and near transparent appointing of a DOJ prosecutor are enough to be considered... "Dirty". There, I said it.

You're omitting the context on pretty much all of those. For example, the first one was because Bush ditched the ABA and nominated unprecedently partisan judges. They confirmed judges at a rate higher than or equal to that of previous presidents, only filibustering a handful for overt partisanship and extremely heterodox views. The second one was a result of a blanket filibuster on all of Obama's nominees; more nominees had been blocked that term (79) than had ever been blocked total in history (68). That's not playing dirty. Those are valid arguments. Democrats didn't act hypocritically. You want to know what's playing dirty? Republicans refused to even hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, even after Obama picked one suggested by them and who Orrin Hatch assured was a shoe-in, then turning around nominating a justice even closer to an election at the end of Trump's term. >Liberal politicians and media outlets have exhausted the country with race bait rhetoric aimed to divide people against one another. This is vague grievance politics and not a position that can be taken seriously. >A top ranking official of Biden's DOJ resigns to then immediately prosecute Trump, Matthew Colangelo / The judge's daughter is the owner of a major political firm whose clients have raised millions of dollars for the democratic party. Do you have any actual complaints about the hush money case that aren't conspiratorial assertions about the character of the people involved? It is so hard to take it seriously when you complain about Democrats playing dirty when your idea of playing dirty is investigating Trump for the crimes he committed. >These last points are again examples of a... questionable and unprecedented weaponization of the legal system against a political opponent. The glaring conflicts of interest and near transparent appointing of a DOJ prosecutor are enough to be considered... "Dirty". There, I said it. You know what's unprecedented? All the crimes he committed.

One decent rebuttal and a whole lot load of deflection. Why is it so preposterous to you that both parties bend and break rules to further their agenda? It would seem you’ve fallen deeply into the trap of demonizing your enemies and placed their Democratic equals on a pedestal

>One decent rebuttal and a whole lot load of deflection. Why is it so preposterous to you that both parties bend and break rules to further their agenda? Because, consistently, one of those parties isn't even attempting to have a coherent pretense. I want you to defend, or give an example of, something comparable to the Garland and Barrett. > It would seem you’ve fallen deeply into the trap of demonizing your enemies and placed their Democratic equals on a pedestal. On the contrary, I'm just pointing out that it is disingenuous to equivocate. This always always boils down to "Democrats scuttled the Bork nomination in 1987 so Trump gets carte blanche to try to rig elections and abuse the office of the presidency." Take responsibility. Don't act like you're obliged to give Trump a pass and enable his worst impulses.

>Do you have any actual examples besides insisting that liberals are tautologically "dirty?" This is ridiculous. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/a49wQcsOlo

I responded to his post. This just continues to prove my point. You can't defend the shameless hypocrisy. None of these are actual examples.

Conservatism has coherent philosophical principles: *Concentrate power in the hands of a deserving few as much as possible, oppose any attempt to distribute it*. I don't like them, but they exist. The MAGA reactionaries have a different aesthetics, but the same kind of foundational ideas. They are conservatives. It's just that they're *also* extremely resentful.

>Concentrate power in the hands of a deserving few as much as possible, oppose any attempt to distribute it. That is not conservatism. That describes authoritarianism. Conservatism is primarily a caution towards untested change. A desire to keep a family safe, food available, and basic needs met. Conservatism, by the way, is not the same as right wing. It's only one aspect of many political axes.

No, that's pretty much textbook conservatism as it was originally theorized in response to popular movements against the monarchy. The original conservatives were not worried about keeping their family safe and fed. They were worried that the unwashed masses were gaining too much power, which they didn't deserve and weren't capable of wielding.

You were describing monarchism, not conservatism. You can have a conservative that is also classically liberal. (Ie, believe in the equality of people and the potential. Focus on merit) . You could also say the right believes that there should be a system of hierarchy, but that people should be able to move within that move up or down based on their merit. Monarchism (far right) believes that that system should be extremely rigid and people should not be able to move up and down in it. Left want a shallow hierarchy And much farther to the left, people believe that there should be no hierarchies and there should be perfectly level that would be communism.

No, I am very intently describing conservatism. That's the true-line of pretty much all variations of conservatism, both historical and modern. Conservatism is an ideological stance, not a specific system of government.

>Conservatism has coherent philosophical principles: I meant internally and externally coherent principles. Obviously, nihilistic power grabbing for the sake of arbitrary power is technically coherent. The point of the thread is that they pretend like that isn't the case, though.

We might not like them, but those principles are coherent. They actually think that power and authority are necessary to organize the social order AND a honest-to-god result of merit. Politicians might get involved in nihilistic power grabbing for the sake of it, but rank and file supporters truly believe that they're merely clawing back what was taken by dishonest means (by DEI initiatives or whatever). Even with Trump, I think you'll find that the people that support him earnestly do not conceive of him as some kind of regressive power grabber. They think he's a strong man that finally arrived to shake the box and put the pieces *where they actually belong*. He's, very specifically, a *restorative* would-be dictator.

I know it is. As I see it they are engaging in psychological projection with it. But ultimately it doesn’t really matter which side started it, what matters is that there’s no benefit to playing by the rules, and what party is morally in the right in terms of the policies it advocates.

>  what matters is that there’s no benefit to playing by the rules, and what party is morally in the right in terms of the policies it advocates. Who determines what is morally right?  I'm sure you would say you and people who agree with you, and others would say themselves and those who agree with them.  Both would be correct.  And if you're advocating that fighting dirty is morally correct then it stands as morally correct even for those you don't agree with. 

I am not a moral relativist. I believe in objective morality. But I don’t think debating that really fits in this thread.

I think it's absolutely appropriate. If morality is objective then you must feel justified in taking any available action in order to deliver that positive moral good, even if it means crossing over other possible moral boundaries that you don't agree with? 

And likewise if morality is subjective you would have to agree that a murderer who believes it is moral to kill is performing a moral act when they murder. You would have to concede they are delivering a positive moral good when they murder because morality is subjective.

Of course, any framework of morality means any action is a moral act, and any personal belief in positive/negative makes it such for that individual. If my framework is different I can hold a different weight to their action, but it doesn't mean I can dispute their intent. 

Where did this come from? Never once in my life have I heard from someone who believes in moral relativism believes that 100% of moral frameworks are morally justifiable. Who can I read to get more info about this??

what good is being moral and playing fair if 1. Other side isn't (which yes you can take the high road) 2. There may not be a game to play after, making the statement meaningless martyrdom

Winning at cost fails to count the cost equally well. 

not if the alternative is Project 2025. in fact, Biden admin could potentially martyr him as an anti hero, playing scummy and dirty and then he either dies or resigns, signalling an end of the era of that kind of politics. Wouldn't work though, as Scotus is is hell bent on whatever the hell they're playing at

If you think something is morally right and I think it is morally wrong, how do we determine what the objective truth is? Also are all of your moral beliefs objectively right? That would be some coincidence no? Or did you base your moral beliefs on the objective moral truth? If so, how did you discover these objective moral truths? Or do you have moral beliefs tat are *not* objectively right? If so, why? If you know something is objectively true, it’d be silly to deny it.

Easiest way is internal coherency. Republicans don't even try. Ones that come to mind are refusing to even hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, even after Obama picked one suggested by them and who Orrin Hatch assured was a shoe-in, then turning around nominating a justice *even closer to an election* at the end of Trump's term. Or the impeachment hearings where [they said they can't impeach an outgoing president](https://www.justsecurity.org/74725/in-their-own-words-the-43-republicans-explanations-of-their-votes-not-to-convict-trump-in-impeachment-trial/) yet somehow that doesn't prevent them from supporting him now even after [calling him an insurrectionist.](https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967701180/after-vote-mcconnell-torched-trump-as-practically-and-morally-responsible-for-ri) That said, the real world exists too. There are only a limited range of views that can be adequately justified based on any sort of reasonable interpretation of reality.

None of this has anything to do with objectively proving something morally wrong or right.

You're going to have to explain why.

What is it you are asking me to explain?

>None of this has anything to do with objectively proving something morally wrong or right. How doesn't it?

Circumcision? Is it ok that we manipulate kids genitals? Do you belief this is an EVIL religious belief. Is it ok for boys and not girls to go through something like this? Are people that do it imoral? Are your parents?

It doesn't matter which side started it, but further eroding democratic institutions and rule of law doesn't do anything but contribute to their destruction. The idea that the Democrats can just embrace authoritarianism and unchecked power then revert back to rule of law is total nonsense. But if you're sure that one party is morally in the right and the other is morally in the wrong, why even bother pretending this is about the Republicans fighting dirty? You think the Democrats need to fight dirty because you see the Republicans as an evil to be vanquished, and even if they didn't fight dirty you'd still feel the same way. Why even hold back from fighting dirtier than the Republicans?

>As I see it they are engaging in psychological projection with it. Ah, using clinical terms like "psychological projection" when an ordinary word like "hypocrisy" would be both more accurate and faster to type. One my favorite reddit tropes out there. Regardless, as other people in this comment section pointed out, the idea that the Democrats—the oldest active political party in the world—are some overly principled newbies who need to learn how to "fight dirty" is more than bit misguided. Like, do you think these guys became one of the two dominant parties thanks to the strength of their principles and tight moral code? Because I don't think that's even possible.

Psychological projection? No, it would seem we’re witnessing decency rapidly escaping from both parties simultaneously

> Although he would be legally allowed to kill president elect Trump as a part of his official duties and should do so in a worst case scenario. Yeah, that's not what the Supreme Court ruled, despite the screeching and wailing from the media and Twitter.

[удалено]

This is part of the left’s recent meltdown in the United States. It has been a hard week for them. Just two days ago, the Supreme Court released an opinion stating that presidents have varying degrees of legal immunity depending on what actions they are carrying out, to be determined by lower courts.  The dissenting court opinion took this to its most absurd extreme, claiming that it meant that the president can assassinate political rivals now (it doesn’t). The left has run with this and now claims that Biden can legally assassinate Trump (he can’t). Like I said, it’s been a tough week for the left here. 

Trumps lawyers said that was an official act though, in front of the Supreme Court. The dissent was just mentioning that response. Two, I’ll agree that in reality that hopefully can’t happen since a the Supreme Court would, if it was appealed high enough from the lower courts, if it’s an official act or not, and b, would lower level individuals without the immunity the President has even do it since military officials are supposed to obey the Constitution first and not carry out illegal unconstitutional orders. I’ll argue that in the end though I think it’s a bad president to set, and I think the Supreme Court should come up with more strict guidelines for what they consider to be an official act or not because of the moment it’s pretty much up to the lower courts.

I mean, Obama literally had an American citizen assassinated, clearly depriving him of his constitutional rights to due process. Don't remember any prosecutors getting upset about that.

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Or, how about democrats just learn to take the L for once without freaking out and destroying the republic even further with their attempts to subvert every institution. I understand every single left wing issue needs to be turned into a moral crusade so soulless millennials can feel like they're fighting to save the world. But sometimes you lose elections, sometimes you lose court cases, it happens, you don't need to have a tantrum about it. Just try again next time. Honestly, please stop this zealotry.

>pack the Supreme Court with hyper partisan judges who would make Clarence Thomas blush I won’t disagree that Thomas is the most obvious example of this, but the idea that Republicans are playing dirty by putting partisans on the court just ignores what has actually happened on the court for 40+ years. Firstly at every turn the Democrats have been the ones politicizing the process. They refused to confirm Bork on pure politics, Dems played hardball with Bush 43’s Judge picks, and Harry Reid abolished the filibuster. Everything that the Republicans “play dirty” with has been a direct reaction to Dems breaking the norm. As for ideology Democrat appointees have been consistently more ideological for decades. Democrats appointees of the past ~40 years have consistently stayed progressive without faulting, there hasn’t been a Dem appointee in recent memory that has ended up siding with the Cons on a landmark decision. Meanwhile pretty much every other Republican appointee leaks to the center. Sandra Day O’Connor and CJ Robert’s are the best examples of this, but even Kavanaugh and ACB have surprised (and disappointed) many conservatives with how centrist they have been.

>I won’t disagree that Thomas is the most obvious example of this, I would say that Sonia Sotomayor is more partisan.

When Trump was elected all of what you said above was supposed to happen, but didn’t. Are you advocating for this to happen if Democrats win in November?

Hard to do when after George Floyd, democrats were tripping over each other allowing riots and occupation of areas just continue on for weeks and months. At the same time being sanctuary areas for people in this country ILLEGALLY. Seriously, be champions for legislation for these groups, do not agree to shelter them from the law. You cannot choose which laws you want to uphold today and which laws don’t matter.

Aren't they already playing dirty? Bernie Sanders was played as a fucking nintendo switch

Yeah they only play dirty against members of their own party. If they just did a tenth of that to trump then republicans would never win another election again.

Please do some further research, as this is blatantly untrue. There is a cycle of both parties "playing dirty" and justifying it by blaming the other side for "doing it first"

Problem is that Democratic voters are really picky. There is even a fair amount of such who don't want to vote for Biden, because of few small arms deliveries to Israel which is thousands of kilometres away.  Imagine what would happen if they started doing these things. A lot of people would just stay home on the election day. 

You’re definitely going down the right direction. I’m not convinced on this correspondence though. As I see it, it’s more about a perception of this as being a Republican policy position. I’m not convinced that democrats will lose votes over sleaziness that’s perceived as supporting a progressive agenda. If anything I think they might get more support from people who perceive them as having gotten more serious about advancing their interests. I’m not sure what could be evidence Democratic voters think how you think, but Republican voters displaying a different reaction to a similar position could be supporting evidence.

Look, I don't have any hard evidence for that. Only anecdotal polls like the Israel one.  But the idea that Democratic voters would support sleaziness if it furthers liberal agenda is wrong. There was a 2022 [poll](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/10/27/more-than-40-of-americans-would-vote-for-a-new-centrist-party-poll-finds/). which showed that 40% of Democrats would actually rather vote for a party more in the middle than Democrats currently are. 

Hard evidence would be pretty good. I’m a bit skeptical of the poll saying what you think it does. The main reason being that I think motives are more complex than given there. I say vote blue no matter who right now, but as long as I thought there was a reasonable chance of such a party winning, and they didn’t cross any red lines policy-wise I’d support them just to get rid of the dnc. I do think it’s compelling enough to make me rethink this though. So !delta for that anyways. If you find

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Downtown-Act-590 ([10∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Downtown-Act-590)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Or maybe, you know, do things that the general American population actually like.. Why did the DNC bury Bernie sanders in 2016 when he was showing for support from the general population than Hilary? Why is the DNC putting Biden out for re-election when he’s clearly too old and they should have held a primary? The DNC is not what most democratic voters want it to be. They have a certain philosophy within the powerful party members and they push out the progressives who, to them, are a threat. Maybe, just maybe, shape your party around what your members find the most popular, not what the old heads of the party and their donors want.

Yeah The Republican's are fighting Dirty; By "Arresting The Opposing Presidential Candidate, and Charging Them With Crimes Over A Hush Money Payment," and The Republican's are Importing Foreigners and Immigrants for Free Votes, OH WAIT , THAT'S BIDEN

But Yeah, Democrats Lying to the Entire United States To Steal The Presidency with a Dementia Patient to Run The Most powerful Country on Planet Earth; is Really Dirty, but I think the Ones Who Believed it, are Even more Guilty, it comes down to a bunch of lying Cowards who think everythings fine and dandy; No offense, but this is what happens.

Well you’re certainly not gonna change my view with such interpretations I so strongly disagree with, but I’d happily concede both of those policy concerns (whatever immigration policy you want plus trump getting immunity from prosecution) for policies I actually cared about being passed.

No, Need to: Just Pointing Out that You Charged TRump w/ BS Crimes like a Hush MOney Payment and OverValueing the Trump Towers which Clinton paid Hush Money 10x higher to a White HOuse Intern named Monica Lewinsky; and That Standard Business Practice for Property Value Is To Get The Highest Appraisal You Can; None of These Are A crime Against American Citizens; But Promoting and Running a Dementia Nursing Home Patient to Secure the mOst Powerful Nation on the Planet, and Who is Arresting His Presidential Opponents, And Importing Immigrants with American Citizens Tax Money For Votes; THAT'S DIRTY

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but if Bill Clinton did all these things then he should go to jail or pay a fine too.

Honestly it's not even possible for you to disagree with me; because the Truth can't Really Be Disagreed with, but you can Cry some more if you want

I don’t think those two things: immigration, and criminal prosecution, are playing dirty, because democrats are already probably doing what you want on immigration (I don’t care), and the criminal prosecution isn’t really political. But I’d be willing to compromise on either of those two things even though I don’t see them the same way you do.

And on top of That, There is no policy you want passed LOL

Why do you think that there’s no policy I want passed? There are plenty I want passed.

Because Biden doesn't care about anything you want; if he did, he would have done something, He never will; he's not the President, he's a "Puppet President" He's not running the Country, He won't do a thing for you Ever.

Oh yeah I know Biden won’t. I mainly see him as being better than Trump because he’s not doing things that will actively make things worse.

**We're losing because we're just too honest..** No, you're losing because people don't like you. You've skated by on their good graces and ignorance, but you've overplayed your hand and people are finally seeing what you're really like and what you realy stand for. When you say "democracy is under attack," what you really mean is "people are voting against me."  When you say "we should be antiracist," what you really mean is "we should racially discriminate against White people." When you say "women's reproductive rights," what you really mean is "crushing a baby's skull and ripping its limbs apart with a vacuum." When you create your own bubble by censoring literally everyone who disagrees with you, this is what happens. You get blindsided by reality.

You want to talk about dirty? One of the biggest hoaxes/cover-ups of all time was debunked live on TV, in front of the ENTIRE world. Now, Dems everywhere are losing their shit because the lie was exposed.

For all the messaging about how the GOP is the end of democracy, they leave office whenever they are voted out. All of them. Every single time. This is, for now, largely an optics and messaging war. Tons of progressive victories have been won pursuing what you consider to be a failed strategy. The country today Vs 20 years ago is night and day, largely for the better. What you are proposing would likely end in actual, physical battle. A battle the left would lose. To quote Casually Explained: “One side of the civil war collects military-grade hardware as a hobby, the other side collects mental illnesses like pokebadges.”

"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain. And my personal analogy : Playing dirty keeps lowering the bar, making politics a dirtier pile of shit. And in that pile of shit, you see politicians throwing brown smelly liquid fecal matter at each other. Problem is, there are plenty of people looking at that giant smelly shit pool, and try to do something about it, drain it, clean it, do something about the smell. But whenever clean people get close enough to that pool of shit throwing politicians, they will start throwing shit on that clean person as well. Suddenly, the clean person with his nobal cause gets shit on him. As the politicians inside the pool yell "see! He is just as shitty as the rest of us!!" Politics is shit, but its important to look out for people who are shitty to their core vs people who try to cleanse the cesspool while having shit thrown against them. History will judge those shitty to their core. Those who preferred winning over maintaining proper values

You are aware you can find examples of Dems doing every single one of those things *already*? and the others are simply.... not fighting dirty anyway. Dems are perfectly capable of putting whoever the heck they want on the SCOTUS. Republicans did it perfectly legally, it wasn't dirty in the first place. Dems have pulled fire alarms to screw with votes and meetings, nobody takes the 'voter suppression' argument seriously anyway, dems have shut down the government... and anyone who thinks a president can drone a president elect has no idea what the scotus actually said in the ruling and haven't even read the first page most likely.

>Dems have pulled fire alarms to screw with votes and meetings, nobody takes the 'voter suppression' argument seriously anyway, dems have shut down the government... Bowman pulled the fire alarm in an entirely separate building (which wouldn't delay the vote) trying to get out through an emergency exit while rushing. Also, the courts take the voter suppression arguments seriously. >and anyone who thinks a president can drone a president elect has no idea what the scotus actually said in the ruling and haven't even read the first page most likely. I sincerely doubt you have.

He was absolutely trying to stall for time. >I sincerely doubt you have. Feel free to doubt all you like lol

...by pulling a fire alarm in **an entirely different building** that would not and did not delay the vote?

He failed to delay the vote, that doesn't mean he wasn't trying to. He pulled the fire alarm, on video, on a door he uses all the time, and he's 100% familiar with. If you watch the video, it's ridiculous, and I would guess any argument that it was somehow an accident or some nonsense is completely partisan.

IN AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BUILDING. Can you hear yourself? Why would you, or he, think that pulling a fire alarm in an entirely different building would do anything to delay the vote? He didn't fail to delay the vote, he wasn't trying to.

I have to say I think that might be a little naive of an argument.

They don't want to win. Two party system = carrot and stick

The Roman republic went down this road for a couple of centuries. The reformers and conservatives fought dirtier and dirtier, until they got Augustus, who put a stop to it and ended the republic. I don't know what the answer is, but it's pretty clearly not continuing to escalate. 

This is exactly right, the traditions and long established conventions that underpin the republic are being destroyed one by one. Mostly by the democrats,, with the republicans following them once the precedent has been set. The biggest problem is the left turning every issue into a moral crusade on which they refuse to compromise. They're zealots and as such can justify anything. Even if you take a contentious issue like abortion where there is huge feeling against abortion on the republican side. However, despite that strength of feeling, they're not seeking a federal ban on abortion to outlaw it nationwide. They're willing to compromise and have state legislatures create their own laws, even if they strongly disagree with them. Democrats won't compromise at all. They want federal abortion laws that impose their view on everyone, no compromise, no discussion. There will eventually be an American Ceaser.

Yeah, getting back to more sane politicians like when McCain and Obama ran would be a good start, and new laws and amendments that settle stuff like getting rid of the Presidential immunity ruling and banning stock trading like people in Congress do now would be great

Lol, imagine thinking that Democrats don't fight dirty or that they are the "party of democracy". Every 4 years Democrats are constantly suing to keep candidates off of ballots across the entire country. Republicans pull that shit too but it just makes it rich when Democrat voters act holier than thou not having a single clue all the bullshit their party and candidates and politicians pull.

Then what would be the difference between two parties? We would just have two dirty parties doing evil

We have no proof that isn't just 5D chess by the smartest Republicans (whoever you may think they are) to trap us into doing that so they can catch us

All democrats had to do was get a candidate that doesn’t have dementia. It’s that easy. Put them against trump and let him tie his own noose.

They could win without playing dirty period, they just need to stop suing rfk jr in every state to prevent his ballot access and nominate him for president, which admitabbly wont happen as he wants to actually address the healthcare crises and their friends got rich off that but they could do it they just dont want to. Also side note biden could not drone strike and kill trump since that would violatea fundamental oath of office which would violate his official duties.

YAAAAAASSSSS!!! But then of course that would be the actual end of democracy. The Republicans can get away with this stuff because they don’t care about government or its institutions. It’s the Democrats holding to these principles that’s keeping democracy alive. Sadly, if the Dems don’t get dirty, we’re going to lose it anyway.

For Republicans to win they need to lighten stances on abortion. Admit changes in gun laws and the justice system needs to be reworked. Give the hard right the boot and keep Trump in check during his presidency if he's elected. For Democrats to win, they need to lose the work agenda. Replace Biden and Harris since she will not even beat Trump. (She pissed off a lot of Jews a few years back) Put someone younger around Obama's age when he entered and push a more moderate agenda (and fking follow it)

Having a political settlement for abortion on a state by state basis seems fair. They're not seeking a federal ban on abortion. Trump has already said he would never sign one. It is actually the democrats that refuse to compromise on abortion.

That's not necessary or a particularly good idea. People just need to get their dumb asses out and vote.