- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,249
- Reaction score
- 59,095
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Motivated may have been a better word. I think what's being communicated is that liberals are realizing they need to go their own way with SCOTUS like it is and do what we can to promote civilization.I'm all about the States charting more of their own path in response to mismanagement and failure at the Federal level
Why Did The Left Fail to Employ Federalism Against Trump?
Now that the Trump Administration is over, I'm periodically (It's tough to think for any length of time when you have kids :p) reflecting back on what my expectations had been v what actually occurred. Trump was a bit more destructive to our Constitutional order than I thought, and, long term...debatepolitics.com
It was just the references to the need to get angry that threw me :-/ we've got plenty of that already.
I've seen worse.Looks like I was wrong in that there was no history, here it is, you will see that the swing is towards blue.
View attachment 67400751
huh?I've seen worse.
Something sort of like you said happened a while ago. It's better than many posters manage.
I mean, the link above exposes that I'd hoped for that reaction from the election of Trump, but, if it takes losing control of the supreme Court to get the left to latch on to federalism, I'll happily take it.Motivated may have been a better word. I think what's being communicated is that liberals are realizing they need to go their own way with SCOTUS like it is and do what we can to promote civilization.
Let's just say that if Trump had offered that as proof, the Washington Post would have counted it as two lies. This says more about the Post than about Trump but it also says that what you posted is poor support for your point.huh?
I agree that progressives need to make their own way. The Supreme Court was a crutch that you leaned on for 75 years. Now you have one that actually reads the Constitution.Motivated may have been a better word. I think what's being communicated is that liberals are realizing they need to go their own way with SCOTUS like it is and do what we can to promote civilization.
What do you plan to do when Republicans take Congress and the White House?I mean, the link above exposes that I'd hoped for that reaction from the election of Trump, but, if it takes losing control of the supreme Court to get the left to latch on to federalism, I'll happily take it.
If that really takes hold, then heck, this country might actually make it.
If Trump offered a graphic from 538 as proof of a point about 538's ratings changes, it would be counted as lies?Let's just say that if Trump had offered that as proof, the Washington Post would have counted it as two lies. This says more about the Post than about Trump but it also says that what you posted is poor support for your point.
That said, it's better than nothing.
The key to the constitution is having your people be the one to interpret the constitution instead of the constitution itself which is pretty vague in a lot of ways.I agree that progressives need to make their own way. The Supreme Court was a crutch that you leaned on for 75 years. Now you have one that actually reads the Constitution.
I guess in such a case, I would hope that they abandon their recent turn to nationalism and Central planning, and return to conservatism. It's probably too much to Hope that they will ever publicly acknowledge the extent to which they allowed members of their party to become domestic enemies of the constitution, but hopefully, as we saw in the post Nixon era, they will just quietly abandon the effort.What do you plan to do when Republicans take Congress and the White House?
If it was as weak as yours, hell yes.If Trump offered a graphic from 538 as proof of a point about 538's ratings changes, it would be counted as lies?
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is not vague.The key to the constitution is having your people be the one to interpret the constitution instead of the constitution itself which is pretty vague in a lot of ways.
I cannot return to conservative. I was never there. Only the collection of radicals that post in this forum consider me such.I guess in such a case, I would hope that they abandon their recent turn to nationalism and Central planning, and return to conservatism.
On the contrary, they do it every time they claim Republicans don't respect the Constitution.It's probably too much to Hope that they will ever publicly acknowledge the extent to which they allowed members of their party to become domestic enemies of the constitution, but hopefully, as we saw in the post Nixon era, they will just quietly abandon the effort.
It appears you are the point of saying things just to say things without you feeling the need for logical consistency between your posts. Also the word infringed is quite vague as it does not define what constitutes infringement and whether the word infringement is modified by the militia clause and in what way.If it was as weak as yours, hell yes.
It gets more vague when its attached to the militia clause, as it shows that being armed was intended for a state guided purpose, but is vague as to what it means by the word militia."[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is not vague.
That clarifies matters. You talk about clarity but reject it when offered.It appears you are the point of saying things just to say things without you feeling the need for logical consistency between your posts. Also the word infringed is quite vague as it does not define what constitutes infringement and whether the word infringement is modified by the militia clause and in what way.
The second amendment is actually quite a good example of the vagueness of that document, thank you for bringing it up.
It gets more vague when its attached to the militia clause, as it shows that being armed was intended for a state guided purpose, but is vague as to what it means by the word militia.
It was never offered.That clarifies matters. You talk about clarity but reject it when offered.
As some Democrats grow impatient with Biden, alternative voices emerge
President Biden took the stage at an Independence Day barbecue just a few hours after the latest horrific shooting to upend an American city — but at his first opportunity to address the nation in person about the Highland Park killings, he did so only obliquely.
“You all heard what happened today,” Biden said. “Things will get better still, but not without more hard work together.”
It was not until about two hours later, after singer Andy Grammer finished an acoustic version of “Give Love,” that the president returned to the stage and attempted to respond to the tragedy more fulsomely, calling for a moment of silence and decrying the spate of mass shootings. “We’ve got a lot more work to do,” Biden said, reiterating some of what he had said in a written statement earlier in the day. “We’ve got to get this under control.”
In contrast, J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor, delivered a fiery response that took direct aim at those blocking gun control legislation. “If you are angry today, I’m here to tell you to be angry,” he said, seething while Biden was consoling. “I’m furious. I’m furious that yet more innocent lives were taken by gun violence.”
I would agree that we need liberals who are willing to speak the flat truth. Right now most democratic leadership is conciliatory and is stuck in 90s style politics, which isn't going to solve anything.
He could be doing more. He's too passive.But he's doing a top notch job!
But he's doing a top notch job!
We've had worse but not often and not this century.But he's doing a top notch job!
no love for Cacklin' Kammy?#racistNewsome/Warren
Warren/AOC
AOC/Warren
Warren/Newsom
Bernie Sanders Senate Majority Leader
AOC Speker of the House
Yes I can ............
I was talking ABOUT the Republicans.On the contrary, they do it every time they claim Republicans don't respect the Constitution.
I guess in such a case, I would hope that they abandon their recent turn to nationalism and Central planning, and return to conservatism. It's probably too much to Hope that they will ever publicly acknowledge the extent to which they allowed members of their party to become domestic enemies of the constitution, but hopefully, as we saw in the post Nixon era, they will just quietly abandon the effort.
I’ve always said the problem with mass shootings lies deep within our society, not necessarily with gun control. We had 28 mass shootings between 1900-1970 in an era without any gun control laws, we're probably fast approaching 300 since 1970. I think we need to see what has went wrong with our society which led to these mass shootings instead of a band aid approach. But be that as it may.As some Democrats grow impatient with Biden, alternative voices emerge
President Biden took the stage at an Independence Day barbecue just a few hours after the latest horrific shooting to upend an American city — but at his first opportunity to address the nation in person about the Highland Park killings, he did so only obliquely.
“You all heard what happened today,” Biden said. “Things will get better still, but not without more hard work together.”
It was not until about two hours later, after singer Andy Grammer finished an acoustic version of “Give Love,” that the president returned to the stage and attempted to respond to the tragedy more fulsomely, calling for a moment of silence and decrying the spate of mass shootings. “We’ve got a lot more work to do,” Biden said, reiterating some of what he had said in a written statement earlier in the day. “We’ve got to get this under control.”
In contrast, J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor, delivered a fiery response that took direct aim at those blocking gun control legislation. “If you are angry today, I’m here to tell you to be angry,” he said, seething while Biden was consoling. “I’m furious. I’m furious that yet more innocent lives were taken by gun violence.”
I would agree that we need liberals who are willing to speak the flat truth. Right now most democratic leadership is conciliatory and is stuck in 90s style politics, which isn't going to solve anything.
I think it would be best to go further left being moderate accomplishes nothing as you see with bidenNope. I think being a moderate liberal is probably the best course for the nation right now. I always have.
Not implausible. My hope is January 6 was that, but, we will see :-/Which is like hoping that the meteor that just entered the atmosphere at 50,000 mph will realize the errors of its ways and turn around before it causes any real damage. Populist revolutions have an inevitable destructive end, and the full realization of its destruction must be felt before anything positive can rise out of the ashes. And we are nowhere close to that realization.
Populist revolutions have to reach a crescendo.
I prefer moderation but realize the culture isn’t there at the moment.I think it would be best to go further left being moderate accomplishes nothing as you see with biden
hes a moderate but whats gotten done? his refusal to fight republicans doesnt wanna take a stance
or a position to try to make both sides happy at the same time im not against biden i just feel like his
strategy is not working im agreeing with you but moderates like biden havent done much i know hes
being blocked by republicans but theirs still things he could do he could cancel student loan debt right
now with a executive order he could put abortion clinics in federal land so the state cant mess with them.
Explain to me how the problem is anything other than not enough progressive Senators? Every single problem can be distilled to that one point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?