Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2022, 12:33 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is a chance to explain something, then.

In the past, you have stated you thought "W" was a worse president than Trump. 

Was that "opinion" (to use your term) stated as fact? 

Or if not, why not?

No it wasn't, the key word being I "thought."  I don't think Trump being worse than Biden is an objective fact, and I can also say your opinion is in the minority right now.  

https://www.slu.edu/research/research-institute/big-ideas/slu-poll/june-2020-poll/trump-biden.php

[Dill]

(06-26-2022, 01:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No it wasn't, the key word being I "thought."  I don't think Trump being worse than Biden is an objective fact, and I can also say your opinion is in the minority right now.  

https://www.slu.edu/research/research-institute/big-ideas/slu-poll/june-2020-poll/trump-biden.php

So the key is to say "I thought"? 

If so, this was a non issue from the get go then. 

What is NOT a non issue is the distinction between judgements of value and judgements of fact, required for logical clarity and consistency. 

Judging Trump worse than Biden, or vice versa, is a value judgement which can be based on fact--like measurable standards of presidential performance--but it can never be a a statement of fact, let alone an "objective fact."  

Talk of "opinions" which can or cannot be "objective fact" just enables conflation of these logically distinct forms of judgment.  

I have referenced or elaborated on these distinct forms many times before. E.g.,

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-And-they-try-again?pid=338713&highlight=judgment#pid338713 #81
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Minority-Rule--27806?pid=1035076&highlight=judgment#pid1035076 #21
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Bad-Boys-II?pid=881090&highlight=judgment#pid881090 1,383
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-More-tariffs-paid-by-US-consumers?pid=724970&highlight=judgment#pid724970 #91
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Brexit-Bungle?pid=650013&highlight=judgment#pid650013 #92
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Analytics-in-Government?pid=563025&highlight=judgment#pid563025 #19

I have also used them in several discussions of journalistic standards, where people assume a hard and fast distinction
between editorial decisions and "reporting facts." 

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2022, 01:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No it wasn't, the key word being I "thought."  I don't think Trump being worse than Biden is an objective fact, and I can also say your opinion is in the minority right now.  

https://www.slu.edu/research/research-institute/big-ideas/slu-poll/june-2020-poll/trump-biden.php

You understand that is data from June 2020, right?

Now, looking at the trending data from 538, Biden is fairing right about where Trump was at this point in his presidency.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?cid=rrpromo

Edit to add: It is eerie how similar the trend line is for Biden and Obama, Biden just came into it with a lower starting point. Really weird.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2022, 04:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You understand that is data from June 2020, right?

Now, looking at the trending data from 538, Biden is fairing right about where Trump was at this point in his presidency.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/?cid=rrpromo

Edit to add: It is eerie how similar the trend line is for Biden and Obama, Biden just came into it with a lower starting point. Really weird.

I did not, my bad.  Odd that it would come at the top of the search.  Thank you for pointing out the error.

[grampahol]

I don't think it is a sure thing for Rs in the mid terms since the hearings and the DOJ hot on the trail..
Toss a bunch of them in the hoosegow and there goes the mid terms..  Funny how trying to overthrow democracy works with elections.  

[Lucidus]

(06-29-2022, 02:06 AM)grampahol Wrote: I don't think it is a sure thing for Rs in the mid terms since the hearings and the DOJ hot on the trail..
Toss a bunch of them in the hoosegow and there goes the mid terms..  Funny how trying to overthrow democracy works with elections.  

Unfortunately, the fall (specifically October) will also bring the Moore v. Harper case before the SCOTUS. This is the case brought by North Carolina Republicans that involved a gerrymandering attempt that conflicted with NC law. 

At the heart of said appeal will be the theory of "Independent State Legislative Doctrine". The intent is to grant state legislatures far more power over election laws and block state courts from hearing challenges of process, which includes redrawing districts. 

With previous compositions of the Court, I doubt this appeal would have even been considered. However, four Justices (minimum required) agreed to hear this one. Given the recent decisions passed down by this Court's majority, there is most definitely reason for concern.

[grampahol]

Quote:Yeah maybe God isn't such a fan of democracy. I mean, historically he is not, and he's quite the authoritarian himself.

Authoritarian is the least of the problems with "god".. It's the one imaginary entity that claims to have created everything and if you don't believe it and "love" it and openly acknowledge it you're doomed to burn in H E Double for eternity, no questions asked, no appeals, no flame proof clothing, nothing. But don't forget.."God" loves you, but by god he's one stubborn SOB with absolutely zero willingness to see it any other way.. AND NEVER EVER makes mistakes..except toothaches, mosquitoes, cockroaches and a bunch of other undesirable things..Constipation, diarrhea, pointless wars, childhood diseases and on and on and on.. For a perfect being this god character sure likes to screw things up..  I'm not sure I quite trust "god" with the constitution being "divinely" inspired.  If that were the case NOBODY could even imagine a way to change the damned thing,..

[Lucidus]

(07-03-2022, 02:24 PM)grampahol Wrote: Authoritarian is the least of the problems with "god".. It's the one imaginary entity that claims to have created everything and if you don't believe it and "love" it and openly acknowledge it you're doomed to burn in H E Double for eternity, no questions asked, no appeals, no flame proof clothing, nothing. But don't forget.."God" loves you, but by god he's one stubborn SOB with absolutely zero willingness to see it any other way.. AND NEVER EVER makes mistakes..except toothaches, mosquitoes, cockroaches and a bunch of other undesirable things..Constipation, diarrhea, pointless wars, childhood diseases and on and on and on.. For a perfect being this god character sure likes to screw things up..  I'm not sure I quite trust "god" with the constitution being "divinely" inspired.  If that were the case NOBODY could even imagine a way to change the damned thing,..

This Court's majority serves as an extension of Evangelical Right. They are radical activists using their position to implement an extremist agenda; with the ultimate goal being Christian Nationalism. This involves the erosion of individual rights that they deem to be in conflict with their religious interpretations, the erasing of any lines they view as separating church and state, and the granting of favored status to anything that aligns with or serves as beneficial to their desired outcomes. 

The evangelical model has - for decades - sought to return the United States to the 1950s; a utopian era within their ideological framework where things like the Civil Rights Act, Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage were laughable concepts. 

However, that's not the only worrisome historical invocation as it pertains to the Court's attempt to realize this objective, as demonstrated by their willingness to grasp at absurd straws from as far back as medieval times in attempt to justify decisions made in the 21st century; specifically Justice Alito in Dobbs and Justice Thomas in Bruen.

Undergirding all of this lunacy is the notion that the Constitution was divinely inspired and that the Evangelical right / Court's majority has correctly interpreted God's intended justice by first correctly interpreting God's moral edicts in the Bible.

Most reasonable people - including those who possess religious belief - would acknowledge that God, the Bible and God's morality are things that cannot currently be proven true / demonstrably verified. It's simply a belief; a belief that requires faith because it falls outside of testable, repeatable, predictive evidence; yet, we have a majority of the Court and a very vocal, determined segment of the population wanting to force the conclusions derived from said belief upon others. 

A worrisome number of our fellow human beings want to turn back the clock, erasing the progress we've made as a species in favor of outdated religious and societal concepts; desiring instead, the comfort provided them by ignorance, exclusion, torpid understanding and lack of empathy.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2022, 02:24 PM)grampahol Wrote: Authoritarian is the least of the problems with "god".. It's the one imaginary entity that claims to have created everything and if you don't believe it and "love" it and openly acknowledge it you're doomed to burn in H E Double for eternity, no questions asked, no appeals, no flame proof clothing, nothing. But don't forget.."God" loves you, but by god he's one stubborn SOB with absolutely zero willingness to see it any other way.. AND NEVER EVER makes mistakes..except toothaches, mosquitoes, cockroaches and a bunch of other undesirable things..Constipation, diarrhea, pointless wars, childhood diseases and on and on and on.. For a perfect being this god character sure likes to screw things up..  I'm not sure I quite trust "god" with the constitution being "divinely" inspired.  If that were the case NOBODY could even imagine a way to change the damned thing,..

Don't forget how vain he is. Constantly needing flattery from his faulty creation. Oh God, your greatness, your magnificence, your infinitive wisdom, we are not worthy, you're so almighty, rahrahrah...

...then again, everyone believes in weird things one way or another. These things don't deserve disrespect. God himself, however, that's a different story.

[hollodero]

(07-03-2022, 05:26 PM)Lucidus Wrote: This Court's majority serves as an extension of Evangelical Right. They are radical activists using their position to implement an extremist agenda; with the ultimate goal being Christian Nationalism. This involves the erosion of individual rights that they deem to be in conflict with their religious interpretations, the erasing of any lines they view as separating church and state, and the granting of favored status to anything that aligns with or serves as beneficial to their desired outcomes. 

The evangelical model has - for decades - sought to return the United States to the 1950s; a utopian era within their ideological framework where things like the Civil Rights Act, Roe v. Wade and same-sex marriage were laughable concepts. 

Isn't this taking it a tad too far?
Eg. that the current SC ultimatively wants to overturn the civil rights act seems like a stretch.

[Lucidus]

(07-05-2022, 07:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Isn't this taking it a tad too far?
Eg. that the current SC ultimatively wants to overturn the civil rights act seems like a stretch.

Desiring an era prior to the Civil Rights Act doesn't mean they would actually seek to overturn it, as I don't think even this radical Court would be that brazen. However, I'm not so confident that same-sex marriage will ultimately elude their God-driven grasp. 

[hollodero]

(07-05-2022, 09:10 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Desiring an era prior to the Civil Rights Act doesn't mean they would actually seek to overturn it, as I don't think even this radical Court would be that brazen. However, I'm not so confident that same-sex marriage will ultimately elude their God-driven grasp. 

Yeah, well... maybe that's true for Alito and the new girl (though I have some doubt), but I don't know about Thomas who after all is black and has a white insurrectionist as his wife.

I feel overturning this Roe verdict, that many people said was not really up to judicial standards (I wouldn't know of course), is still quite far away from attacking the civil rights act and whatnot. Issues like that probably should be handled by federal law and not so much by a ruling on a precedent. Not that I have a particularly positive view of those justices, for sure. But still.

[Dill]

(07-03-2022, 02:24 PM)grampahol Wrote: Authoritarian is the least of the problems with "god".. It's the one imaginary entity that claims to have created everything and if you don't believe it and "love" it and openly acknowledge it you're doomed to burn in H E Double for eternity, no questions asked, no appeals, no flame proof clothing, nothing. But don't forget.."God" loves you, but by god he's one stubborn SOB with absolutely zero willingness to see it any other way.. AND NEVER EVER makes mistakes..except toothaches, mosquitoes, cockroaches and a bunch of other undesirable things..Constipation, diarrhea, pointless wars, childhood diseases and on and on and on.. For a perfect being this god character sure likes to screw things up..  I'm not sure I quite trust "god" with the constitution being "divinely" inspired.  If that were the case NOBODY could even imagine a way to change the damned thing,..

Actually, all the bolded points ARE traits of "authoritarian" judgment.