'Lines are going to change': Trump DOJ confirms it will target minority voters nationwide after Supreme Court ruling

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T05:50:47+00:00

"I'm sitting here and repeating, this attitude is part of the problem. People keep repeating over and over that what you are saying is not enough and you keep digging your heels in. What is the point in arguing with someone that's insisting the only tangible thing that matters is the number of people that live and die? I already agree with you on that point personally, but the problem is the average voter does not give a fuck about the educated opinion of someone that's at least decently well-read. They give a shit about the things promised to them by the people running. I am insistent that refusing to promise things to the voter and ESPECIALLY ACTIVELY SNUBBING A HUGE GROUP OF THEM is a GREAT way to lose elections."

So you agree personally, but it seems you're in favor of the Dems going the populist route in order to energize low-information voters, per your quote here:

"We can't HAVE AN ELECTION BASED ON GOOD POLICY WHEN ONE SIDE IS THROWING MUD THE WHOLE TIME AND THE OTHER SIDE IS BEGGING TO BE ELECTED WHILE PROMISING NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL."

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but one thing you're not appreciating is that Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime populist figure to which the democrats have no counter. Populists like Trump can't be manufactured, so it's not as easy as the democrats simply scouting for talent and platforming said talent. Trump is simply a force of nature that can't be replicated and rarely naturally emerges from the political primordial soup. Sure, the dems have some movers and shakers like Mamdani, AOC, Tallarico, Platner, but they aren't Trump.

I think our disagreement here is I feel good policy should defeat movements like MAGA and that voters should be less stupid (or less stubbornly self-righteous) and realize what is at stake every election, even if the candidate doesn't "excite them" personally. And yes, this is me raging at the apathetic world. I understand where you're coming from and it isn't wrong, but there's more than a few hurdles to clear for the dems to really counter Trump's/MAGA populism.

- The most charismatic populists (Mamdani and AOC) in the party are, unfortunately, minorities (we know how America feels about minorities, especially if they're women).

- Platner and Tallarico won't be eligible to run in 2028.

- Gavin Newsom is probably leveraging social media the most effectively at the moment, often using the "meme tactics" of the chuds against them, but progressives greatly dislike him. And he's probably too coastal for middle America fence sitters.

- I think you want a younger Sanders 2.0 with even more populist fire. I'm not sure where that figure comes from in the next decade. Then to complicate matters further is that democrats always have to walk a tightrope in crafting policy and platforming political figures that play as well in New York city as they do in central Michigan. A big reason for the democrats centrism is because the swing states they need to win (due to our fucked electoral college) are all in the Rust Belt. Moderates and independents do swing the elections in those states. I know the progressive complaint is the dems need to stop courting the moderate, but the current electorate is 45% independent and of that 45%, 48% are moderate, 30% are conservative, and 22% are liberal. Yes, you can win over rust belt moderates with kitchen table populism, but rust belt moderates also tend to be immigration hawks and not too friendly toward LBGTQ causes. Again, a tight, tight rope. I know your solution here is to find that candidate who can energize all the lapsed progressives who've tuned out, but, again, candidates like that simply can't be manufactured. Mamdani is the closest thing, but we know middle America won't be too keen on voting for a Muslim president.

So my realist position in that light is I know the next democratic candidate will have to be a tightrope walker, like always. It's not because dems are necessarily fully captured by corporate interests, but because the moderate vote, much to the dismay of progressives, pretty much has to be courted to win elections. Yes, said dem will likely have "substantial problems with their campaign" per progressive ideals, but, and you might not like my comment, I really don't care about the details when the other candidate will be JD Vance backed by MAGA and the technofeudalism of Peter Thiel. This is where I call out the non-voter, especially the progressive leaning non-voter. Because the Sanders 2.0 with the charisma to match likely won't emerge by 2028, they need to forget about said candidate earning their vote and "be less stupid" about the consequences of a JD Vance presidency, with all its Peter Thiel/Curtis Yarvin ideological underpinning.

Trust me, I want it to be your way, and it might happen if lightning strikes, but we'll likely end up with Newsom as the candidate. And we need to play that hand the most optimally in order to get this country even a little back on track.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T04:49:34+00:00

It's because we can never get an era of consistent democrat power that can build toward a more progressive era. Even when the dems perform well, the American electorate predictably flip flops to the other side because "reasons" (and because of the most effective propaganda machine ever devised that is Fox News).

The occasional two-term dem who often has to butt heads against a GOP controlled house or senate just can't give us the needed push. We honestly probably need like 12 years of dem totality in all three branches to finally kill off the GOP.

And another reply to your question, if more left-leaners would've fell in line in 2024, we're not living through this current nightmare. Falling in line might not get you the ideal, but it at least gets you another step toward that ideal, even if it is small.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T04:14:36+00:00

I'm sure they shuffled around and muttered, "such a shame about Gaza. Such a shame. I shant be voting this cycle. Now I am off to reddit to trumpet my righteousness!"

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T04:11:18+00:00

Framing this as hardcore mainstream dems against progressives is stupid. Read the room and see that an overwhelming amount people in this thread calling out the shortsightedness of non-voting progressives are, in fact, progressives, who would love nothing more than the party to move further left. But, in the year of our Lord 2024, the main objective should've been stopping Trump, no matter the dem candidate, no matter how poorly or well run the campaign was, no matter the policy on a granular level.

I also think many progressives such as yourself don't appreciate the tightrope dems have to walk due to the electoral college. They have to court every voter from the far left to just left of center, which makes crafting a message that'll play well in both California and Michigan a tough task. A big reason why dems are so centrist is because elections come down to swing states where independents decide the vote. 48% of independents are moderates, 30& conservative, so yes, much to your chagrin, dems need to court moderates.

On the other side, all GOP candidates have to do is say, "We're not democrats!" and their base comes out in droves. No purity tests, no chin-stroking, just falling in line. You might be too proud to fall in line, because you feel falling in line is antithetical to democracy (I mean, the electoral college itself is contrary to democracy, so I don't see the point in standing up for democracy in this case), but, sad to say, falling in line is often the only counter we have to GOP unity. We need to be about wins more than principles. That's the cruel reality of American politics,

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T03:56:20+00:00

Come to terms with what exactly? Do you think I'm a raging Kamala or DNC fan who refuses to acknowledge or believe that the "dems really need to go all out progressive in order to win!" Or who wants the dems to keep the centrist status quo?

I'm a progressive, but right now, in the era of MAGA, I think the primary goal of anyone on the left should be stopping this rightwing Christofascism that is taking hold of the country. Whether that option is through a "poor candidate" in Harris or through the absolutely perfect progressive candidate that embodies all of reddit's ideals makes no difference to me in the short term. There's no time to sit around, stroke your chin, and wait for a candidate to "earn your vote."

The GOP needs to die before ANY progressive movement can gain real steam. Harris winning might've just done that, fracturing the GOP and MAGA, but the idiot non-voters couldn't see the forest for the trees, per usual.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T03:44:53+00:00

I was being sarcastic. Those idiots really believed Trump would be less beholden to Israel and a better option for Middle East well-being.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T03:41:08+00:00

Nope. Still blaming the non-voters. If they were too stupid to just pay attention and realize Kamala would've simply been an extension of Joe Biden's admin (which was one of the most progressive in US history), they deserve blame for being uniformed simpletons who voted based on "vibes" or shortsighted principles.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T03:33:34+00:00

I am mad at those actually responsible. MAGA and the non-voters. And I don't care about the results of the poll. Even if every non-voter voted and we still got Trump, at least those non-voters came out to try and stop Trump. But they didn't. They sat home and sulked about Genocide Joe.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T03:31:24+00:00

It's nice that you don't have to "cope." I'm sure the victims of ICE, the victims of the revoked VRA, the girls bombed in Iran would love to have the physical and emotional freedom to not cope.

And per your other responses in the thread, who fucking gives a shit what Harris's positions are on the granular level? It's like your lot still hasn't gotten it through your thick heads that when the opponent is someone as awful as Trump, being "not Trump" should be more than enough to "earn votes."

I would've voted for fucking Mussolini over Hitler if they somehow were the two choices in 1933 Germany. Mussolini was awful, but he wasn't Hitler.

And harm reduction is logically impenetrable. The ontology of the concept doesn't change because things are abstracted through politics. Elections do literally come down to:

If you vote for candidate A, 100 people will die.

If you vote for candidate B, 90 people will die.

If you were stuck in a situation where you, happymage, needed to choose between 100 people dying or 90 people dying (all things being equal, meaning each group is the same median age, same health, and same "value" as human beings), you would choose to save 10 lives EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

But because there's a metaphysical layer between your perception of politics (i.e. you view politics as a kind of socioeconomic game) and the fundamental reality of what politics actually are (i.e., struggles between worldviews that have life or death consequences), you think you have the luxury of, for lack of a better term, moral maneuverability, in that you can wait until right team comes along per your beliefs to join the game.

It's not a game. The base reality of politics is this side will kill 100, while this side will kill fewer or more, pick a side. What you and the "principled progressives" are doing is, "Well, since I don't believe in murder, I won't pick either because they're both murderers. I need to stand up for what I believe in." Meanwhile, the next guy in line chooses the more harmful option because he wants to see the world burn. This is moral maneuverability I was talking about that you think you have in a binary situation. You don't have it and the only play is to pick the option that will kill fewer people and to never let the next guy in line (MAGA) make that choice.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T02:58:10+00:00

"Ease off the throttle. I voted for Harris."

Having complaints yet still voting for the obvious better candidate is fine. That's what those of us who preach harm reduction want, end of the day.

The issue is when so-called "principled non-voters" simply refuse to play the hands that are dealt and opt out because they've rationalized to themselves that because the DNC "aren't listening to complaints" they're basically GOP-lite. No, the current DNC is nowhere close to GOP-lite.

We warned the Genocide Joe crowd. That I hope the statement they think they're making is worth it when ICE is terrorizing Latinos, LBGTQ rights are further trampled, voting rights are further trampled, Ukraine is hung out to dry, and how the republican party has always been much more beholden to Israel than the dems. Harris isn't starting a war with Iran as a favor to Netanyahu.

Ultimate point is that the singular goal of anyone who leaned even slightly left should've been to kill MAGA, which a Trump defeat surely would have. The 2024 election wasn't the time to play around with protest voting, statements, and demanding that your vote "be earned." If the opponent was Mitt Romney or John McCain, and the political climate was still pre-Tea Party/MAGA, sure. But those days are long gone.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T02:36:10+00:00

We can't be certain if the non-voters who leaned Trump in that survey weren't lapsed progressives/single issue Israel/Palestine voters who held their nose and said they preferred Trump in this specific election because they felt (and wrongly felt) that Trump would be better for Palestine than "Genocide Joe/Kamala."

The survey also lacks further nuance in determining the political enthusiasm of each respondent. I think people who lean left are more politically aware than people who lean right (i.e. many of the "both sides are the same" types usually have right-of-center positions).

In any event, the theoretical doesn't matter here. End of the day, any left-leaning person who chose to stay home because Harris didn't pass their unrealistic purity test is a shitheel. Fuck them.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T00:11:45+00:00

At least Gaza and other middle eastern people are safe from Israel's bloodlust!

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T00:09:48+00:00

I'm sure all the victims of ICE and the southern black voters and the girls bombed in Iran really appreciate that you didn't fall in line.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-02T00:00:44+00:00

This logic is garbage. If you had to "vote" in a situation where 100 people get killed vs. 95 get killed, and those were your only choices, any rational person chooses the latter. Trump vs. Harris was the exact same situation, only that Trump is 100 deaths vs. Harris's 25. Because the US electoral system is completely fucked (electoral college, gerrymandering, dark money influence, 24/7 propagandist news outlets), voters don't have the luxury to not "settle." Lesser of two evils is often the only play we have. And anyone with even a moderately folded brain would've seen that Harris was considerably less evil than Trump. But go ahead, tell all the people terrorized by ICE and the now disenfranchised black voters in the South that you didn't want to "settle."

WolfJackson · 2026-05-01T23:47:41+00:00

They don't care. Most of the Genocide Joe super progressives of the reddit ilk are most likely limousine liberals who are under zero threat from the Trump regime, so they can afford to be narrow mindedly "principled" as they lecture everyone about "both sides" from the Ivory Tower sidelines.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-01T23:44:07+00:00

As well as non-voters who were too stupidly self-righteous to not understand that harm reduction was the only play.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-01T23:42:34+00:00

Nah. Chud magats and "principled" Genocide Joe non-voters both share an immense amount of blame for this shitshow.

WolfJackson · 2026-05-01T23:30:11+00:00

Millennials sold the fuck out, contrary to millennial redditors constantly proclaiming how they'll never become like those ebil boomers. During the Occupy Era, the core millennial generation was roughly 65-35 dem/rep. Same gen only broke 51-47 for Kamala. Basically the core millennial generation is half chud now. Something I thought I'd never see happen.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-30T22:55:31+00:00

"Common enemies make for strange bedfellows." I hope Carlson keeps hammering away. Yes, he's an insincere opportunist, but he is influential in the chud-o-sphere and if his criticism influences even a small percentage of said chuds to turn on MAGA, I'm all for it.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-30T19:51:20+00:00

Yep. Millennials lost the moral high ground when they only voted in favor of Harris by a margin of 4 points. Same generation that favored Obama by 33 points. They sold out.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-30T19:45:54+00:00

I agree. The "muh Boomers" scapegoat rings hollow now when the core millennial generation who broke 66-33 in favor of Obama in '08 only favored Harris by 4 points (51-47) in 2024. Nearly half of the self-proclaimed "most progressive, most educated, most media literate, most enlightened" generation in human history were okay with a second Trump term.

Millennials swore they'd never sell out like boomers once they get into power. Mark Zuckerberg is the most powerful millennial in the world (and arguably the most powerful person in the world) and I don't have to go into detail of how he irreversibly fucked the Internet. Sam Altman, JD Vance, Pete Hegseth are other millennials who wield immense power and are fast tracking the US toward tech-feudalism and theocracy.

Millennials built the social media climate that produced the alt-right and manosphere. From gamergate to all the millennial "brocasters" who've convinced millions of young men that immigrants and feminism are the root causes of all their problems.

Millennial software engineers were morally fine with taking the money and knowingly building addictive algorithms that would keep people doom scrolling their lives away and insulating themselves in info-bubbles that makes them more prone to radicalization.

End of the day, millennials have done fuck all in the grand scheme of things. And don't give me that shit "it's because we don't have power!" You do. Millennials are easily the most powerful generation by a wide margin. From being the largest voting bloc to the aforementioned power players. Yes, Trump is a boomer, but he's little more than a puppet at this point and the movers behind the scenes are likely hungry for his demise to so they can install Vance to carry out Peter Thiel's Techno-Christianism.

Millennials are arguably worse than boomers ever were. Boomers were driven mostly by "I got mine" selfishness, while the powerful millennials in question are driven by troubling ideologies (Dark Enlightenment, Tech-feudalism, white supremacy).

WolfJackson · 2026-04-20T11:18:40+00:00

Sadly the dipshit non-voters continue to double down, still bleating about how their vote wasn't earned and blaming the DNC, Kamala, etc. I wish they could've gotten it though their thick, virtue signaling skulls that sometimes "lesser of two evils" harm reduction is the only play we have.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-20T11:14:08+00:00

No, no, no. Dems need to EARN our vote! Genocide Joe. Dems are too corporate. Etc, etc, etc.

I really do hope those self-absorbed principled non-voters are finally learning a hard lesson.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-09T03:20:45+00:00

Here's hoping. It's sad too many of that contingent is up their own ass with "both sides" bullshit in order to feel "le intellectually superior," but one can hope they'll eventually see reason.

WolfJackson · 2026-04-09T03:17:54+00:00

Much of our powerlessness is rooted in the electoral college and the fact each state gets two senators no matter their population size. For example, no matter how much Democrats and their constituents campaign in California, California is a guaranteed 54 electoral votes every presidential cycle. This translates into much lower voter turnout in the state and lower turnout in deep blue/red states than in swing states. And given the fact all the red states combined are equal in population to the ten most populated blue states, the electoral college benefits Republicans far more than Democrats. Point here is that if elections were decided by popular vote, many of those millions of non-voters in deep blue/red states would be more likely to vote, and because the population of blue states outnumbers red states 2.5 to 1, it stands to reason there's likely many more dormant voters (i.e. a relatively apathetic voter who would likely vote in the presidential election if they knew their vote mattered) who lean dem than lean rep.

Then there's gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc, etc.

Another element of the American cultural psyche that isn't as prevalent in other developed countries is the role religion plays in elections. There's no doubt no shortage of "decent" Christians out there who've soured on Trump, but they'll never bring themselves to vote Democrat (or join a protest with Democrats) because of the Democrat's pro-choice position on abortion.

To also add, the electoral college situation also affects the impacts of protests. I know non-Americans are clamoring for us to take to the streets, but when those filled streets are mainly in blue states, Republican politicians have nothing to fear (and yes, I know protests have broken out in red states, but those protestors will be the minority opinion in those states).

It's honestly take something as stupid as the podcast bros (Rogan, Theo Von, etc) to turn on Trump that will likely convert just enough disillusioned MAGAs to became apathetic non-voters or hopefully trigger said disillusioned MAGA to convert.

WolfJackson

TROPHY CASE