Posts: 7,431
Threads: 266
Reputation:
30416
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-11-2020, 10:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I have to admit if Trump were just given a second term (which would probably turn into a third term because if we are circumnavigating democracy for Trump what makes anyone think he's going to leave office alive?) I'd probably have a bitter laugh at people who told me that voting for a third party candidate was a waste of a vote because they "can't win."
I mean sure, you can vote for someone other than Trump but it's just a wasted vote.
There are enough Trumps to keep this country under rule until I'm a blissful corpse. I will say it's funny Jared Kushner doesn't get a turn to be king, though.
LOL
Funny you leave out Melania's first daughter the Dragon Queen.
Posts: 4,302
Threads: 7
Reputation:
15106
Joined: Jun 2015
Mood:
(11-11-2020, 10:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If that happens, we can listen to Trump
If you got some free time later, might I suggest the subReddit r/trumpcriticizestrump? I think you'll find it quite delightful.
Posts: 5,946
Threads: 329
Reputation:
44340
Joined: May 2015
Location: is everything.
Mood: None
I voted for Trump in 2016. I am very sorry. The man is a loose cannon.
Posts: 28,122
Threads: 40
Reputation:
122254
Joined: May 2015
Location: Parts Unknown, PA
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 09:19 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I voted for Trump in 2016. I am very sorry. The man is a loose cannon.
I'll admit when Trump beat Clinton I was ok with it because at least something interesting might happen. Looking back I realize that wasn't a wise desire on my part. America is like a teen girl from the suburbs who wanted to spice up her life by dating a drug dealer and now we can't shake him.
Posts: 11,176
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44303
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 10:20 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll admit when Trump beat Clinton I was ok with it because at least something interesting might happen. Looking back I realize that wasn't a wise desire on my part. America is like a teen girl from the suburbs who wanted to spice up her life by dating a drug dealer and now we can't shake him.
I didn't vote for him but I had similar thoughts. Then I think about what would have happened if Hillary had filled 3 SCOTUS seats and I still think it was worth the Trump presidency. Time will tell if that changes.
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't vote for him but I had similar thoughts. Then I think about what would have happened if Hillary had filled 3 SCOTUS seats and I still think it was worth the Trump presidency. Time will tell if that changes.
Respectfully this is a bad take. For one, the Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster on our political institutions.
But just on the issue of the Supreme Court, what kind of justices do you think Clinton could get McConnell to actually allow a vote on? You would have had 3 moderates replacing a very conservative, a moderate, and a very liberal judge. That's a 3-3-3 split.
Posts: 28,122
Threads: 40
Reputation:
122254
Joined: May 2015
Location: Parts Unknown, PA
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 01:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't vote for him but I had similar thoughts. Then I think about what would have happened if Hillary had filled 3 SCOTUS seats and I still think it was worth the Trump presidency. Time will tell if that changes.
I guess we'll have to see what a 6-3 conservative leading SC does before we declare it to be preferable to what I feel may be an unlikely belief that Clinton would have made the thing ultra-liberal had she had the chance.
If they don't overturn Roe vs Wade shouldn't Trump lovers revolt?
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess we'll have to see what a 6-3 conservative leading SC does before we declare it to be preferable to what I feel may be an unlikely belief that Clinton would have made the thing ultra-liberal had she had the chance.
If they don't overturn Roe vs Wade shouldn't Trump lovers revolt?
Yea, the reason why there were so many judicial vacancies for Trump to fill with unqualified appointees was because McConnell held up Obama nominees across the board. Hell, I don't even know if he'd allow Merrick Garland if Hillary nominated him. Meanwhile, none of the 53 confirmed Trump nominees for the court of appeals were black. 1 was Latino. 85% of his total nominees were white, compared to 64% under Obama.
Posts: 38,880
Threads: 1,711
Reputation:
55762
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Respectfully this is a bad take. For one, the Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster on our political institutions.
But just on the issue of the Supreme Court, what kind of justices do you think Clinton could get McConnell to actually allow a vote on? You would have had 3 moderates replacing a very conservative, a moderate, and a very liberal judge. That's a 3-3-3 split.
It's why, IMHO, so many (non) Trump supporters are so dead set against "court packing"...it's all they got from him. If they supported, either outright or by just not condemning, all the awful things he did and then they STILL don't have a conservative court for the rest of their lives then they did it all for nothing.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 28,122
Threads: 40
Reputation:
122254
Joined: May 2015
Location: Parts Unknown, PA
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 01:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea, the reason why there were so many judicial vacancies for Trump to fill with unqualified appointees was because McConnell held up Obama nominees across the board. Hell, I don't even know if he'd allow Merrick Garland if Hillary nominated him.
Yeah, a little odd to deny a president who is riding out his second elected term a SC nomination while giving one to a soon to be lame duck one term who is about to get voted out and who has already appointed two already.
Oh well.
Posts: 11,176
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44303
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Respectfully this is a bad take. For one, the Trump administration has been an unmitigated disaster on our political institutions.
But just on the issue of the Supreme Court, what kind of justices do you think Clinton could get McConnell to actually allow a vote on? You would have had 3 moderates replacing a very conservative, a moderate, and a very liberal judge. That's a 3-3-3 split.
I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me. Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA. I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA.
So you are finally admitting they would have to be right wing extremists in order to agree with your opinion?
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me. Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA. I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.
I trust a balanced court that is the result of bipartisan agreements more than I trust a 6-3 partisan court that is filled with ideologues hand selected by interest groups.
Posts: 37,557
Threads: 889
Reputation:
122920
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me. Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA. I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.
We've yet to see how ACB will rule from the SCOTUS bench. But we do know that Gorsuch is quickly becoming the new swing vote and Kavs is ruling a lot more moderately then many would have allowed you to believe.
There's really no such precedent to show a Liberal judge is capable of being moderate.
Anybody feel free to name me the Liberal that has been considered a swing vote in SCOTUS
Posts: 13,243
Threads: 431
Reputation:
39547
Joined: May 2015
Location: Birdland
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's why, IMHO, so many (non) Trump supporters are so dead set against "court packing"...it's all they got from him. If they supported, either outright or by just not condemning, all the awful things he did and then they STILL don't have a conservative court for the rest of their lives then they did it all for nothing.
It was a GOP strategy in 2016: Vote for him because if only because he will put our people on the courts.
It worked.
(11-12-2020, 01:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Yeah, a little odd to deny a president who is riding out his second elected term a SC nomination while giving one to a soon to be lame duck one term who is about to get voted out and who has already appointed two already.
Oh well.
I mean, he would deny a newly elected president that ability too.
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 01:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I had no doubt you wouldn't be in agreement with me. Three middle of the road justices won't be what's needed to overturn some of the unconstitutional laws in states like CA. I suppose the Dems created a monster like me by targeting law abiding citizens with their illogical bullshit laws while simultaneously treating actual criminals with kid gloves.
A law isn't unconstitutional until it is determined to be so by the courts. If it is unconstitutional, then a moderate, which is more of a swing vote, would side with a majority saying it was such.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 40,628
Threads: 1,062
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's really no such precedent to show a Liberal judge is capable of being moderate.
Anybody feel free to name me the Liberal that has been considered a swing vote in SCOTUS
The liberal position is just more often the correct position.
Conservatives are the ones who have to sometimes admit that their position is wrong.
Posts: 11,176
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44303
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A law isn't unconstitutional until it is determined to be so by the courts. If it is unconstitutional, then a moderate, which is more of a swing vote, would side with a majority saying it was such.
Bel, you're much smarter than to actually believe that. However, on that note, the lower courts continue to thumb their nose at the Heller decision, so even if a law is found to be unconstitutional almost identical laws can survive as long as the states enacting them continue to fight for them in court. See the recent New York City case that they fought for tooth and nail until the SCOTUS granted cert and then they quickly amended the law in an obvious admission that they were 100% wrong the entire time. The deep blue states are playing games with people's constitutional rights to score lame political points and I'm tired of it.
Posts: 16,257
Threads: 415
Reputation:
60100
Joined: May 2015
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Mood:
(11-12-2020, 02:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The liberal position is just more often the correct position.
Conservatives are the ones who have to sometimes admit that their position is wrong.
I don't really know how best to express how wrong this is.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
Posts: 11,176
Threads: 59
Reputation:
44303
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(11-12-2020, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are finally admitting they would have to be right wing extremists in order to agree with your opinion?
No. Once again assuming facts not in evidence and stating your opinion as fact. Name a right wing extremist currently sitting on the SCOTUS.
(11-12-2020, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I trust a balanced court that is the result of bipartisan agreements more than I trust a 6-3 partisan court that is filled with ideologues hand selected by interest groups.
I'm sure you do. I don't, at least not on the issues important to me. Blame the Democratic party, they've created a lot of former dyed in the wool liberals like me with their constant overreach.
(11-12-2020, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We've yet to see how ACB will rule from the SCOTUS bench. But we do know that Gorsuch is quickly becoming the new swing vote and Kavs is ruling a lot more moderately then many would have allowed you to believe.
There's really no such precedent to show a Liberal judge is capable of being moderate.
I certainly can't think of one and yet this point is never actually discussed.
Quote:Anybody feel free to name me the Liberal that has been considered a swing vote in SCOTUS
I'm sure the silence will be deafening.
|