“Calvinball famously has only one rule: “There are no fixed rules.” Here, Jackson wrote the Court seems to have two: “That one, and this Administration always wins.”“

Wow. Again, this should be headline news. The Supreme Court doesn’t believe in its own legitimacy any longer due to republican bias.

Actually, the rest of that section also screams "SCOTUS is losing legitimacy in the eyes of the District Courts"

Some view it as hyperbole; others don't even know what the words mean.

But it's all textbook. Textbook history, textbook political science, textbook psychology, textbook social psychology. Elementary stuff, not obscure. And it's happening in real time, right before our eyes.

I still think the rumors that Epstein was a Mossad asset being used to ensnare prominent Americans for black mail material to benefit Israel have never been more salient. Look who on the Dem side is rushing to agree with Trump...

Columbia has outright supported the fascists, that's what makes it funny. Fuck 'em, they reap what they sow.

The moderates that are in control of party messaging will take any opportunity to both ignore the left and blame it for their losses. Also importantly they’ll take any opportunity to just be lazy and not bother sticking up for anyone they see as insignificant donor or voting blocks.

If you're upset that nobody is putting your "build from the bottom up and the middle out" clip on Facebook or the local news enough, it's because it's not interesting. You have to actually say something meaningful to get attention, which means taking risks. Safe is dead. Take risks, get reach.

It's both. And messaging reach is not independent of content. Interesting messaging gets more reach! Saying the same old trite bullcrap gets ignored since it's trite bullcrap. When you say something new and interesting, media carries it and people share it. Big key to the success of Bernie and AOC.

The white guy running from the same party was polling far, far worse then she wound up doing.

Not everything is about identity. Harris did not lose because she was black or a woman. She lost because she refused to distance herself from a deeply unpopular President.

How then, do your actions help or harm the goal of winning over voters who do not already agree with you?

Most protests fail in their objectives. Those that succeed take those questions seriously. What is the thing you want, what do you need for it to happen, how do you get the things you need?

It all comes back to theory of change. The US has elections and will continue to have elections, because in a federalized system they're near impossible to stop. So your task is to win over voters. Not make a military occupation morally and practically unsustainable.

But they did it with a clear goal, and a clear theory as to how their actions would coordinate to achieve that goal.

Their goal was different, to remove foreign colonial rule, not to win the sympathy of an electorate that disagrees with them. That leads to different tactics.

Gandhi his movement are another great example of a
protest movement with extremely strong top down leadership and discipline with a clear, focused message and that made itself sympathetic and purged people who made them look bad.

Exactly the opposite of what you've been advocating for!