Yeah, given how much Trump and Republicans lean on Heritage, and Trump has been talking about doing some "light" tyranny on day 1, it's ridiculous to attempt to write off the Heritage Foundations' plan to Christian Fascism.

Now tell us how many Heritage Foundations recommendations do the Republicans and Trump take on board! Distancing the Heritage Foundations from them rather undersells the position of one of the most influential public policy organizations particularly within conservative politics.

Which is also why they wind up filled with "small business owners" who seem to all be about making money off land they own.

Overall, 70% of U.S. adult citizens who were eligible to participate in all three elections between 2018 and 2022 voted in at least one of them, with about half that share (37%) voting in all three.

-Pew Research Poll on Voter Turnout

And it looks like a significant portion of the 30% who don't vote are white adults without a college degree who lean Republican.

Actually, the recent record turnouts should really be getting you to pay attention to how the elections are structured. It turns out, the way districts and the electoral college are organized means that where you get out the vote matters. Telling people to vote harder doesn't make those systemic obstacles go away.

Sounds like a reason for Biden to set a whole bunch of legal precedent while he's still president.

I was there for it, and watched it happen. I'm familiar with the sort of people who popularized the idea that Social Justice is something to be derided. I'm not too keen on basing my idea of what is bad social justice on the definition that comes to us from the people who thought journalistic malpractice was based on who Zoe Quinn's ex was mad at.

And yet you're conversant in the idea of SJWs and keyboard warriors. Where did you come by that idea, and who are these people whose political existence is so sharply limited to online discourse?

From the sorts of things I've seen, it's anyone with "blue hair and pronouns", particularly if they have had a particularly viral moment that can be easily inserted into "Woke SJWs OWNED" clip compilations. Typing on a keyboard doesn't make for very good visual content, but I suppose posts clipped to show how cringe SJWs are is probably what you're referring to.

Somehow, I doubt you have a full picture of their political activities based only off what someone else was able to turn into ragebait.

I bow to your clearly highly nuanced take of checks notes "people who care about social justice are a bunch of whiners who are bad at politics".

If they are "SJWs", the claim isn't really that they aren't politically active, is it? In fact, the claim is that they aren't spending the four years between presidential elections focused on the next presidential election. As it happens, if you are building political power, spending all that time and energy focused on a single national race is almost certainly a waste of resources. So, what's the claim here? That "SJWs" spend far too much time concerned about the actual lives of people to engage in "enough" political advocacy to convince a preexisting party to handle those issues instead?

I think it makes far more sense to do the work and advocacy that is required to make people's lives better directly, and thus have built a popular movement that the major parties want to jump on the bandwagon of, rather than spend years trying to convince these lumbering facets of the establishment that they should do the work instead.

What an absolutely deranged claim. What is it that "SJWs" are advocating for that you think is invalid? Because if it's something along the lines of "they should stop advocating for an oppressed group of people" you should really consider what it means to try to build political power. Unless you're going for "if we give the billionaires more stuff, maybe they'll let us have medical care, as a treat."