RBG leaves the stage.

It doesn't help that people are conceptualizing "Outright and proud about it evil" and "less than perfect" as "the lesser of two evils."

Having to choose between Hitler and Stalin was "Choosing between the lesser of two evils."

Having to choose between Biden and Trump is not.

Not having an absolutely across the board, no compromise, tailored to your exact specifications choice served to you on a silver platter doesn't mean you're being force to "Choose between two evils."
 
It doesn't help that people are conceptualizing "Outright and proud about it evil" and "less than perfect" as "the lesser of two evils."

Having to choose between Hitler and Stalin was "Choosing between the lesser of two evils."

Having to choose between Biden and Trump is not.

Not having an absolutely across the board, no compromise, tailored to your exact specifications choice served to you on a silver platter doesn't mean you're being force to "Choose between two evils."

Everyone has their own individual range of what they consider good and evil. You are the not a pope, we are not adherents to your religion, so don't try to dictate moral valuations.
 
Possibly wishing his was one of the skulls in her chifferobe!

Yet Trump seems to be the one collecting trophies and skulls of his enemies from across institutions, political persuasions, and branches of government:

John S. McCain (the Destroyer)
John S. McCain III (the Senator and Final Neocon)
George H. W. Bush (the President)
Elijah Cummings (the Representative)
John Lewis (the Representative)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the Justice)
 
Last edited:
Yet Trump seems to be the one collecting trophies and skulls of his enemies from across institutions, political persuasions, and branches of government:

John S. McCain (the Destroyer)
John S. McCain III (the Senator and Final Neocon)
Elijah Cummings (the Representative)
John Lewis (the Representative)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the Justice)

ETA:
George H. W. Bush (the President)

?

People in their 80s?
 
Where is having a president who is not a filthy Russian whore on your list? How important is that?

I'm reposting this from another thread to see what you think of Putin's Hawaiian prostitute (this isn't a whataboutism- it's okay to be disdainful of both Obama and Trump or one or the other or neither):

"Russia annexed Crimea during the Obama administration (I'm glad we didn't enter into a war or 'police action' over it). The Obama administration pressed the 'reset button' with regard to US/Russia relations (probably worth a try but ultimately futile). Obama said "the 80's called, they want their foreign policy back" with regard to the idea that Russia is our greatest threat (that didn't age well). Obama said " ... after my election I have more flexibility" to Medvedev with regard to NATO missile defense in Poland. At some point Obama realized how naive and milquetoast his Russia policy was and started implementing harsher more aggressive sanctions, which is fine (I believe Trump has not relaxed or removed any of the previous administration's sanctions but I may be mistaken). Obama was not a credible stalwart against Putin. If he was, Crimea would still be in Ukraine (I don't care if Crimea is in Ukraine or not)."
 
Last edited:
Yet Trump seems to be the one collecting trophies and skulls of his enemies from across institutions, political persuasions, and branches of government:

John S. McCain (the Destroyer)
John S. McCain III (the Senator and Final Neocon)
George H. W. Bush (the President)
Elijah Cummings (the Representative)
John Lewis (the Representative)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the Justice)

I'm not sure how outliving people counts as "collecting trophies". It's not like Trump can take credit for carrying out a plan of tactical longevity to defeat his enemies.
 
Getting a bit off topic here... but...
At some point Obama realized how naive and milquetoast his Russia policy was and started implementing harsher more aggressive sanctions, which is fine
Russian actions/policies at the start of Obama's term were different than the actions at the end of his term. Obama's actions should be examined in that context.

(I believe Trump has not relaxed or removed any of the previous administration's sanctions but I may be mistaken).
You are mistaken.

Trump has lifted sanctions on multiple Russian companies that had links to Putin. See: The Guardian

It should also be note that:
- Trump has attempted to get Russia back into the G7/G8
- Revealed classified information to the Russians
- Failed to address Russian meddling in the 2020 election, as well as bounties on US troops
 
I thought I was clear? I am a conservative, not a Trump supporter.

A) you've said in several posts over the last couple of pages that you're either starting to lean towards Trump or feel like you might have to vote for him, and B) 3 out of the 5 points you listed as being what was most important to you are more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans - 4 if the label you're assigning yourself were actually true, rather than what your stated opinion actually is.
 
FWIW, Andrew Torrez from was on The Daily Beans podcast the other day (yesterday?), and he opined that the best thing for Democrats to do if they gain the power in the next election is to double the size of the federal judiciary, rather than increasing the size of the Supreme Court. That would take some of the power away from the Supreme Court, and is actually playing to the Democrats' strength. A future Republican government would find it difficult to reduce the size again, and the party of small government would also find it difficult to double it again.

I don't know how viable that is as an option, but it's definitely an alternate take.

Another alternate take I've read is the idea of appointing all 180 federal justices to the Supreme Court and having everything (including what cases to hear) decided by a panel of 9 randomly-selected justices.
 
Another alternate take I've read is the idea of appointing all 180 federal justices to the Supreme Court and having everything (including what cases to hear) decided by a panel of 9 randomly-selected justices.

I do think the Supreme Court would work well as a sort of rotating body where each case is seen by 9 (or 5 or 11 or 13, any reasonably sized odd number would work) of Judges, but not necessarily the same 9. That would make packing the court impossible, but would not diminish the Supreme Court's power and, in my opinion, put it more in line with what it's supposed to be there to do.

Yeah I could get behind some version of that.
 
FWIW, Andrew Torrez from was on The Daily Beans podcast the other day (yesterday?), and he opined that the best thing for Democrats to do if they gain the power in the next election is to double the size of the federal judiciary, rather than increasing the size of the Supreme Court. That would take some of the power away from the Supreme Court, and is actually playing to the Democrats' strength. A future Republican government would find it difficult to reduce the size again, and the party of small government would also find it difficult to double it again.

I don't know how viable that is as an option, but it's definitely an alternate take.

Another alternate take I've read is the idea of appointing all 180 federal justices to the Supreme Court and having everything (including what cases to hear) decided by a panel of 9 randomly-selected justices.

I doubt a President Biden would advocate for anything like this. If Biden wins, I think the far left segment of the Democratic Party will hate him (which would probably be for the best and I think many of them already hate him).
 
Last edited:
Well yeah all of this is dependant on the Democratic Party deciding not to spend the 4/8/8 years NOT tearing itself apart over internal philosophical divides.
 
Well yeah all of this is dependant on the Democratic Party deciding not to spend the 4/8/8 years NOT tearing itself apart over internal philosophical divides.

When I said that the hatred for Biden by the far left "would probably be for the best" I meant it as a good thing for the Democratic Party. As the vocal far left minority exposes and attempts to aggressively assert itself I think it will become more isolated and impotent, to the benefit of the greater Democratic Party. Apart from bland platitudes and lip service, I don't think Biden is their friend or ever will be.
 
I doubt a President Biden would advocate for anything like this. If Biden wins, I think the far left segment of the Democratic Party will hate him (which would probably be for the best and I think many of them already hate him).

why not?

it's the kind of law&order that would actually help both the people and the courts.
It would also help balance the complete incompetence of the Trump appointees.
 
A) you've said in several posts over the last couple of pages that you're either starting to lean towards Trump or feel like you might have to vote for him, and B) 3 out of the 5 points you listed as being what was most important to you are more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans - 4 if the label you're assigning yourself were actually true, rather than what your stated opinion actually is.
That's not exactly true, and results in a false conclusion.

For example, being anti trust is not exactly the same as being pro-labor and/or anti business anti capitalism. The issue is not a dichotomy .... and it is important to understand the Democrats' position I feel is every bit as much or more harmful than Trump's position. The same can be said for regulatory burden on business. That regulatory burden is far more destructive to the small to mid range business sector than it is to the trusts, due to the massive amount of money being spent by mega corporations following the Friedman doctrine on lobby groups and regulatory capture. Both breaking the trusts and quite a bit of deregulating small to mid level business is required.

The same sort of thing is happening in environmental issues. Ethanol for example is more harmful to the economy, environment and even global warming than gasoline. But a powerful lobby combined with regulatory capture has made this very harmful practice of mixing Ethanol with gasoline mandatory in many states and heavily subsidized everywhere.

Food safety is another example, but it would take a very long boring book long essay to explain why. Just suffice it to say as regulatory capture eliminates entire sectors of food production in favor of a very few large monopolistic trusts, food quality and food safety are actually declining rather than improving, yet the excuse used in nearly every case was food safety!

If you have these trusts, then sure you need strong labor and unions combined with strong regulation from over burdensome heavy handed government to prevent their abuse of economic power. On the other hand by breaking the trusts, you don't need either and would want less of both.

The Democrats and Republicans are stuck in the Big Business vs Labor and Big government false dichotomy. They are flip sides to the same coin in this respect. Neither is actually beneficial.
 
Last edited:
I doubt a President Biden would advocate for anything like this.

He's spoken out before against packing the courts in any fashion. But he's refused to comment so far this time. Who knows what will happen if he is elected? These are unprecedented times.

If Biden wins, I think the far left segment of the Democratic Party will hate him (which would probably be for the best and I think many of them already hate him).

I assume one of the reasons he picked Harris as his running mate is to get the left wing of the party on board.
 

Back
Top Bottom