- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You're entitled to your opinion :shrug:
I think he's unqualified. His track record shows that. He's a bad President in my eyes.
Your opinion may be that Trump is a walking disaster as a president but as you said people should not be throwing around words they dont understand. Anyone who passes the vetting process is qualified to be president regardless of your opinion of them.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Imagine Clarence Thomas saying same about Hillary....we all know it would be true but would it be proper?:roll:
She should retire and enjoy her life. :mrgreen: If you genuinely care for her you should want Trump to win in 2020. That way she would forsure fight to live at least 4 more years. If a Dem wins in 2020 her will to live may not be as strong.
interesting analysis-perhaps you have a solution?
Do you have a point to make? If so it escapes me.
I'm glad we're agreed that no quarter should be given to the other side.
Trump will probably get three SCOTUS seats and the far-right Supreme Court and Lower Courts the right have always wanted. You'll get your overturn of Roe V. Wade, repeal of Affirmative Action, repeal to Obamacare, overturn of gay marriage, more pro-discrimination laws, probably some more corporate-centered rulings, etc.
Then what?
Careful what you ask for.
I respect that and where your coming from, i disagree with you but i respect your opinion. I honestly dont have any problem with you.expressing your opinion, whatever it may be. However you dont sit on the supreme court. I dont begrudge Ginsburg her right to express her opinion, she has that right. At the same time i do wuestion her judgement. Its somewhat inappropriate for a judge to express opinions outside of rulings.You're entitled to your opinion :shrug:
I think he's unqualified. His track record shows that. He's a bad President in my eyes.
It's an interesting argument, but I think what makes it more interesting is to consider it in the light of 2016, and the aftermath.
What Trump represented, for good or bad, was an actual departure from business as usual in Washington DC. His election was as scary to the entrenched Republicans as it was the entrenched Democrats. Trump represented a successful revolution in the Republican party of the loping, uncouth, blue collar masses of the flyover states and he won against the epitome of the entitled, Business as Usual political class in Washington.
The average working class American was sick of it. The Republican base was tired of hearing "wait until next election" whenever it seamed like it was time for their concerns to be addressed, and the Democrat working class in the Midwest was tired of unanswered promises, and fail policies when Democrats attempted to address them.
I think, if nothing else, Trump turned the tide in the election with one statement that he almost certainly didn't write himself: "It used to be that they built cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they build cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
That line cut to the core of what pissed off the rust belt more than anything else. Creeping, persistent, Democrat lead decline and all Hillary could offer them was "well, get a different job!" .. her "let them eat cake" moment.
Trump is still seen as a thorn in the side of establishment Washington, and Establishment Washington is a term that is increasingly associated with Democrats now that so many anti-Trump Republicans have bailed from politics in favor of the chattering class. That isn't a good place to be for Democrats, and I think, given the severe distrust of Washington in both parties, being the party of bigger authoritarian government programs will not serve them well in 2020.
one last point: Sweeping government benefits is an effective political selling point during recessions when the electorate is feeling most vulnerable and looking for easy hope. That is increasingly looking to be an unlikely scenario in 2020... and yet the Democrats keep pushing forward like they'll get a recession just in time for election day.
Well, I have seen partisans willing to compromise after compromise suits them politically. I think it might have been advantageous to defuse the Garland bomb after it became clear that the appointment of Garland by Obama would have made no difference to the court ideological lean.
Granted, if RBG and Breyer leave the bench whiles Trump is in office then that would be proven true regardless of Trump throwing the Democrats a bone.
Edit: Let's face it, the problem of increasing conservatism on the Supreme Court has nothing to do with Merrick Garland and everything to do with 4 Progressive Justices who refused to retire under Obama and thought they'd wait for Hillary.
But then, again, throwing the Democrats a bone would have required the Democrats to behave very differently than they have for the last 3 years (or 11.. or 19, depending on how you look at it). They can't put that toothpaste back in the tube, no matter how much they may want to if they lose in 2020.
Ukraine ..that reminds me Obama gave them blankets an MREs to fight Russian tanks. Trump sold them offensive weapons including Javelin anti tank missiles. And yes the Ukraine got their funding once Trump felt like they were trying to combat corruption. Even people like Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Trump has done more for Ukraine than Obama ever did. How do you think Putin feels about knowing if he moves his tanks more into the Ukraine they will have a US made Javelin missile jammed up their A**es. I bet he is pissed at his puppet. :roll:
I read this post twice because I found it, in a very welcome sense, dense. Your assessments of recent, domestic politics are reasoned and well worth discussing. My post to TurtleDude, however, was intended to be much broader. The differences between Democrats and Republicans, in the most objective sense, are inconsequential. We have differences, of course. As individuals. As constructed groups. But the things that Americans fight about politically are usually argued in such a narrow focus that the two "opposite" choices for us would each be about a mile away from the extreme proposals for other people.
For these reasons and more, I just don't find myself very engaged in conversations about the differences between Republicans and Democrats. They're both self interested and petty. They both use opposition to a supposedly hostile force to attribute importance to their actions. My critical point is that people are wicked smart. They're so smart that they prey on the weaknesses of other people in ways that could almost be imperceivable if you aren't looking for them. In that spirit, I reject American partisanship as helpful or necessary or consequential. It's just a tactic to keep existing power brokers in charge of power.
you are lying about the federalist society and I know that for a fact since four of the five founders were close college friends: one was a suite mate.
Two of them were agnostic Jews who had no religious bias against abortion. The society has noted that abortion is one of those issues that its members are split over. Do many anti Roe v Wade attorneys support the Federalist Society? of course
Anecdotes are worthless.
Members of the Federalist Society have presented oral arguments in every single abortion case that has been before the Supreme Court since 1992.
By the way, that's a quote.
I would agree and disagree, or agree in fact and disagree in spirit. There are few things more diametrically opposed in politics than the concept of self determination and government directed welfare. Personally I find that the former is more fulfilling and the latter is more seductive. In practice there is little difference in how the two parties have administered the government.
That's what I'm saying. Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same coin in the same currency. Yet look at our political situation. An impartial observer who didn't know the causes of our disagreements but only saw the reactions they provoke would think we're arguing about whether or not to continue living or commit mass suicide. We're not. Partisans of every shape and color tend to overestimate the importance of their ideals and think that opposing their political adversaries is more important than taking an affirmative position on anything.
Im not even sure she will then. Remember she turned obamas request for her to retire down. Its very possible the only way she leaves the office is by casket.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Right, but I think the differences now are at least slightly more substantial partly because the Republican in the white House is interested in giving more than lip service to the actual meat of party ideological differences.
Well, he's interested in himself. Let's not pretend that Trump gives one rip about any ideological difference between the parties. He's not even a Republican. That, and all the Trump mania, on both sides, is temporary. He's a distraction. He'll be out of office and dead while the larger story continues. Trump didn't invent partisanship. He just exploits it. The themes I'm talking about were present before Trump and will be there after him.
Well, it is a lifetime appointment.
I think arguing about Trump's motive for breaking from the two-party status quo is ultimately meaningless when the point being made is just that he has broken from the status quo.
Regardless of why Trump chose the path he has, the fact remains that he took it, has been successful with it, and has stuck to it. That is more than you can say for most politicians in either party.
Ah, there we diverge. "Trump's motives are meaningless," to me, is just another shade of, "The ends justify the means." Again, you're overly fixated on Trump when he was never the topic of anything I posted nor is he even what this thread is about. I offered an analysis on the political nature of humankind and the political situation of the US. We had a good exchange about it, but I'm not interested in talking about Trump here.
Well, I should point out to you that my first response to you did reference Trump a few times because, in response to your statement, I found it interesting to point out that your argument that both parties are the same has less meaning given the changes in the Republican party since the nomination of Trump, and that the parties are differentiating more as a result.
I'm not litigating the sea of Trump's supposed crimes with you, the Democrats are failing at that enough for both parties.
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?