Expanding the SC aka The end of democracy

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 04:15 PM)Dill Wrote: If Biden and Trump run in 2024, and Trump wins, it won't be because Biden was a worse president. Trump was worse by all traditional measurements, and will be far worse if he serves again. If he wins it will be because enough electors in the right states put party over country and rule of law to make that happen.

Opinion stated as fact is never a good look.

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Opinion stated as fact is never a good look.

Seems more like a prediction to me.  It's looking less and less likely Trump 2024 is going to be a thing, though.  With that being said, if Trump is the GOP candidate in 2024 it would have to mean that the GOP is still rallying around him and DeSantis and possible some others I think can/will primary him if he runs, completely fell off the map

So if Trump is actually the 2024 candidate, I don't think it's completely crazy to say that neither his own party nor any system of justice gives a damn about what he tried to do in 2020 and you otter know that letting someone get away with shady stuff is an invitation for them to do it again and again.

Trump 2024 indicates that he has our entire political system over a barrel, so yeah....I could see him having the time and influence he didn't have on short notice in 2020 to make things a little more uncontestable for his return to the white house. 

[Sled21]

(06-24-2022, 10:49 AM)hollodero Wrote: Nope, it's Donald Trump that actually wanted to overthrow an election to stay in power as an usurpor. That is not my take, that is a fact. Get to terms with that before starting whataboutism and telling me I have to change my news sources. Yours apparently misinform you on that.



I am certainly not a fan of Schumer's remarks in I guess 2020? But if you tell me that it actually was his intent to call for the murder of a justice on the behalf of the entire left, then you lose me.

Silence speaks volumes, my friend. The left has been very silent about condemning those statements, and others, and have been very silent about the assassination attempt. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 04:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Seems more like a prediction to me.  It's looking less and less likely Trump 2024 is going to be a thing, though.  With that being said, if Trump is the GOP candidate in 2024 it would have to mean that the GOP is still rallying around him and DeSantis and possible some others I think can/will primary him if he runs, completely fell off the map

His use of past tense would suggest it most certainly is not a prediction.  I've been saying for some time I think it's going to be DeSantis, so I concur with you on that.

Quote:So if Trump is actually the 2024 candidate, I don't think it's completely crazy to say that neither his own party nor any system of justice gives a damn about what he tried to do in 2020 and you otter know that letting someone get away with shady stuff is an invitation for them to do it again and again.

More accurately, that the GOP voters do not give a damn.  You will recall that Trump was not the GOP choice for their ticket in '16.

Quote:Trump 2024 indicates that he has our entire political system over a barrel, so yeah....I could see him having the time and influence he didn't have on short notice in 2020 to make things a little more uncontestable for his return to the white house. 

Very possibly, but that has nothing to do with Dill stating his opinion as fact.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 04:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Silence speaks volumes, my friend. The left has been very silent about condemning those statements, and others, and have been very silent about the assassination attempt. 

Some of today's statements are infinitely worse.  I suppose that "protecting our democracy" only matters when things go your way.

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 04:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: His use of past tense would suggest it most certainly is not a prediction. 

I think it's an informal and pessimistic prediction...he did use the word IF three times in there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 04:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think it's an informal and pessimistic prediction...he did use the word IF three times in there.

You're killing me Smalls.  He literally said this;

"Trump was worse by all traditional measurements, and will be far worse if he serves again." 

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 05:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're killing me Smalls.  He literally said this;

"Trump was worse by all traditional measurements, and will be far worse if he serves again." 

You mean he's stating that Trump was worse than Biden is the fact with which you take umbridge? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 05:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You mean he's stating that Trump was worse than Biden is the fact with which you take umbridge? 

Are you trolling me now?  He stated that Trump was worse than Biden, by every traditional measure.  This is an opinion stated as fact, hence my comment.

[grampahol]

(06-20-2022, 03:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: First, I have a somewhat technical question about that. Could a republican majority in the senate, pretty much a certainty after the midterms and quite possibly beyond, simply pull the nuclear option, expand the court to 13 judges and put 6 strict Trump loyalists in there* [*EDIT in response to previous answers, I understand the president appoints justices, so this would be viable only after 2024 should a republican win]. I'd think they could easily do that [after 2024], but I'm not certain and the internet doesn't really answer that for me.

There's a reason I ask that, imho this could be the last puzzle piece to abandon elections - or say, the necessity to care about them - altogether and establish a one-party system. The rest is pretty much apparent imho, an authoritarian president with a loyal party in the majority in both chambers could do the trick quite easily. Like just using alternate electors from now on, who in the end would stop that if the next VP is on board? Or a president that quite literally can do anything he wants, in any case no impeachment will stop him and apparently no other legal remedy is available. The constitution is levered out quite easily that way, as of yet I have not seen any possibility to stop a president doing anything if his party holds the majorities (actually, a senate majority suffices) and is with him 100%. And this is very likely the case after 2024. Trump (or someone just like him, but probably him) will run and might win, and so will his Congress minions.

As for the SC, I chose 6 Trump loyalists for a reason, it seems Justice Thomas might already be on board. I mean, that would be embarrassing for Tadjikistan really. A wife of a SC justice engages in open subversion attempts - imho already a huge scandal in its own rights - and said judge does not have to recuse himself from related legal matters and hardly anyone seems to care about that, it's that normalized already. My trust in that branch is eroding quickly as well, for that reason and because it apparently turned into an institution just as political (and hence blindly loyal if need be) as the other two branches. Only thing possibly still missing is a majority of blind loyalists (I guess Gorsuch and Kavanaugh disappointed Trump greatly), hence the initial question.

I know folks will call me crazy for putting up a topic like this (and sure, go ahead), but I think this is all way more realistic than people would admit, or despite all conceded hyperboly at least worthy of debate. Eg. the republican party in Texas is about to pass a resolution that calls the election of Joe Biden illegitimate. And hearings discuss whether Trump knew he actually had lost? The Texas GOP doesn't want to see it that way, and I'd say almost the whole republican party does not, and a large part of their electorate. Mitch McConnell of all people apparently holds the fort, but I suppose even he is gone if Trump wins again. Other dissenters leave voluntarily or get primaried out.

Lastly, why do I care? Because that affects me in Europe as well. Hardly any of our tiny domestic topics is as important as an alliance (culturally, morally, value-wise, militarily) with the US that imho can not possibly be relied upon in good faith any longer.

First off the mid terms are not predetermined. The DOJ still may indict trump along with a number of republicans in congress and toss every one of them in prison. That should be a national holiday!

Second, if the court can be expanded to 13 it can be expanded to 26 and if it can be expanded to 26 it can be expanded to every single eligible voter in the country which is exactly what it should be with mandatory voting on a national holiday on matters of national importance.  We simply can no longer trust politicians in these matters.  Half of them can no longer be trusted to put the well being of the nation in front of their own power.

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 05:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you trolling me now?  He stated that Trump was worse than Biden, by every traditional measure.  This is an opinion stated as fact, hence my comment.

Sorry, I'm trying to work and look at abortion threads now.  Let's see....trolling, no not on purpose.  I think we all tend to present our opinions as statements of fact on here, so I didn't read anything concrete into that.

Anyways, this aside has nothing to do with whatever this thread is about.  I've lost track.

[grampahol]

(06-24-2022, 05:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sorry, I'm trying to work and look at abortion threads now.  Let's see....trolling, no not on purpose.  I think we all tend to present our opinions as statements of fact on here, so I didn't read anything concrete into that.

Anyways, this aside has nothing to do with whatever this thread is about.  I've lost track.

Easy to lose track in word salads of opinions of national importance.. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 05:44 PM)grampahol Wrote: Easy to lose track in word salads of opinions of national importance.. 

Well we have overlap with this and the other roe v wade ones, and now we are into generic Trump v Biden stuff, so it's all sort of running together.  look at me not shut the damn laptop, though.  I'm a junkie.

[grampahol]

(06-24-2022, 05:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well we have overlap with this and the other roe v wade ones, and now we are into generic Trump v Biden stuff, so it's all sort of running together.  look at me not shut the damn laptop, though.  I'm a junkie.

Get yourself in a methadone clinic Nate.. it won't help with the issue at hand, but you'd sleep better and be forced to use more laxatives.. LOL

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 05:46 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well we have overlap with this and the other roe v wade ones, and now we are into generic Trump v Biden stuff, so it's all sort of running together.  look at me not shut the damn laptop, though.  I'm a junkie.

i've abandoned all other threads for the hot Roe v Wade thread....so fire right now

[hollodero]

(06-24-2022, 04:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Silence speaks volumes, my friend. The left has been very silent about condemning those statements, and others, and have been very silent about the assassination attempt. 

Well, Schumer himself admitted his words were wrong. But you know, I don't even bother with that. I am not defending "the left" on your accusation, they probably indeed were too silent about many things, just don't imply Schumer actually sent a killer commando out.

And what is this game about firing right back against the left anyway. You try to discredit the entirety of what I say with pointing to a Schumer quote. I mean, yeah, that sure can be seen as shitty, I see the point, but what does that have to do with anything. Nothing of that does alter or diminish anything Trump tried to do and did.

[Dill]

(06-24-2022, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Opinion stated as fact is never a good look.

?? Making inferences about possible election outcomes is 

not "opinion stated as fact." 

Also, I only use the term "opinion" when discussing legal and journalistic genre of that name.

I don't use it otherwise to describe judgments of value or fact.

[GMDino]

(06-26-2022, 12:24 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Making inferences about possible election outcomes is 

not "opinion stated as fact." 

Just tell him you have a "suspicion".  That'll work.

[Dill]

(06-24-2022, 05:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Are you trolling me now?  He stated that Trump was worse than Biden, by every traditional measure.  This is an opinion stated as fact, hence my comment.

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?

[Dill]

(06-24-2022, 09:54 AM)hollodero Wrote: I'm of course not saying you need to stop to talk about racism. There's plenty of issues where it is necessary to do so, like housing, encounters with law enforcement, inherent biases in the workforce that hamper a black person's chances to advance in the workfield and many more, often a legacy of oppression and a result of current biases. Sure, talk about that please. But I'm distinctly saying that at times, it is too much. Like telling a white woman her wearing dreadlocks is condemnable, because cultural appropration. When we get to racial hairstyle police, it's too much. And it's of course not that topic, it's the sum of topics like these. A loud group of natural born accusers always looking for a thing to be outraged about, quite often coming across as pretty narrow-minded and potentially racist as well. Like dismissing what an old white man says just by pointing out he's an old white man, which happens regularly to the applause of many. Not sober, not helpful.

And sure, these are all little things. But overall, at least when listening to certain people with certain agendas, I feel at times the debate crosses the line of being actually patronizing and condescending even. In a sense of over-victimization, for example. The black person needs constant support in anything, his race has been so beaten up by white oppression that he can't possibly make it without us helping all the way. I also feel it makes no sense to teach white people that they have to walk on eggshells and be ubercautious around black people who are so much hurting and so fragile, and if they make a misstep they need to be demonized. At a point some of those mindsets imho create more diversion between the races instead of less. Like the more extreme parts of critical race theory that the right claims is the whole thing while the left claims it does not exist at all. White people are inherently oppressors through their whiteness and black people are inherently victims and let's make a school project about that. Well, my opinion would be, maybe not. And maybe using "old white man" as an insult isn't such a clever trope either. But I know it's just one more of these tiny things that just sum up, sum up to a plethora of viewpoints where I find myself asking, wait, does this make things better, and does this even make sense? Or is there a tendency to put a racial context to as many things as possible to be a good person and it's sometimes too much and more damaging than helpful.

You are busy doing good work elsewhere, so I quite understand if you don't respond to these points/questions. 

1. You seem to side with those who work against racism, recognizing the many sites where work still needs to be done, but follow that with reference to a "loud group of natural born accusers, always looking for something to be outraged about." The latter implies that their criticisms of the current status quo flow from their personality faults, rather than any really existing social problem.  That's a charge leveled against civil rights workers at least since the 1890s, and continuing generation after generation.

2. The claim that "the black person . . . can't possibly make it without us helping all the way" is a common inference made by rightists since the '80s at least, sometimes calling efforts to roll back institutional/economic racism the "soft bigotry of good intentions" (as GW Bush once put it). This charge is leveled directly at those who recognize legal and economic inequality in housing and education and wat to address it with policy. People who actually work for equality of opportunity, e.g., through admissions policies, then become the "real racists."  

3. Would just like a source for the statement "White people are inherently oppressors through their whiteness and black people are inherently victims," language which we find in state legislation outlawing efforts to limit curricular attention to the history of U.S. racial conflict. You've called that one of the "extreme parts" of CRT that the left doesn't acknowledge. If it really is a "part of CRT" then there must be some text or speech somewhere by proponents of CRT which state this.