Donald Trump 2020

[Anastasis 23,717]

Trump is wrong and should not be using his twatter platform to attack the judicial branch actions in this way.  That is not a hard thing to say, but I guess it needs to be said for the JDS's of the world. And I didn't vote for Trump last time, and won't vote for him this time. 

I just find it funny that somebody would get worked up at this point about "normalizing" the notion that SCOTUS cannot operate because of political bias. That ship sailed from port quite a while ago. To the extent that it is pretty common on the left to openly advocate court packing to shift the ideological balance of the court.   I think that Biden and Sanders are the only D candidates that have come out against it. 

[Biff Tannen 46,161]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

To the extent that it is pretty common on the left to openly advocate court packing to shift the ideological balance of the court. 

This is not the reason they (Mayor Pete, I'm assuming) advocated "court packing".  It's to bring balance to the court and de-politicize it.  But I'm sure you knew that.

[Anastasis 23,717]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's to bring balance to the court and de-politicize it.  

AKA, to shift the ideological balance of the current court.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Anastasis

[Guest Lobo]

Bring balance to a court that frequently votes 5-4?   You want a tenth/short Center for some reason?

[jimmyjazz 47,136]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I just find it funny that somebody would get worked up at this point about "normalizing" the notion that SCOTUS cannot operate because of political bias. That ship sailed from port quite a while ago. To the extent that it is pretty common on the left to openly advocate court packing to shift the ideological balance of the court.   I think that Biden and Sanders are the only D candidates that have come out against it. 

Let's be fair, shall we?  "The left" is not "left-leaning justices".  Furthermore, the advocacy for court-packing gained most of its momentum after Mitchy and the boys refused to consider Merrick Garland's nomination for a seat on the court.

[hayden_horn 11,402]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Trump is wrong and should not be using his twatter platform to attack the judicial branch actions in this way.  That is not a hard thing to say, but I guess it needs to be said for the JDS's of the world. And I didn't vote for Trump last time, and won't vote for him this time. 

I just find it funny that somebody would get worked up at this point about "normalizing" the notion that SCOTUS cannot operate because of political bias. That ship sailed from port quite a while ago. To the extent that it is pretty common on the left to openly advocate court packing to shift the ideological balance of the court.   I think that Biden and Sanders are the only D candidates that have come out against it. 

no, my point is that he is paving the way for the normalization for the president, specifically donald j trump, to ignore supreme court decisions "because bias" - and he will be enabled by the republican senate and his 43%.

[Anastasis 23,717]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Let's be fair, shall we?  "The left" is not "left-leaning justices".  Furthermore, the advocacy for court-packing gained most of its momentum after Mitchy and the boys refused to consider Merrick Garland's nomination for a seat on the court.

I don't recall much chatter until after Kavanaugh, but I agree Garland definitely influenced that perspective. 

[Anastasis 23,717]

11 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

no, my point is that he is paving the way for the normalization for the president, specifically donald j trump, to ignore supreme court decisions "because bias" - and he will be enabled by the republican senate and his 43%.

I know, know.  Right before the military has to drag him out of the oval office. I read the post. 

[hayden_horn 11,402]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I know, know.  Right before the military has to drag him out of the oval office. I read the post. 

what i'm presupposing is...without an effective enforcement mechanism (ie, the executive branch), maybe the military doesn't drag him out of office, and we end up with a shattered republic. he's normalizing terrifying behavior.

Edited February 25, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Captainant 28,527]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't recall much chatter until after Kavanaugh, but I agree Garland definitely influenced that perspective. 

Yeah it definitely had nothing to do with the stonewalling of a record number of judicial nominations by McConnell which led to the record number of nominations by trump. 

Classic anastasia - misrepresent the fact pattern and leave out critical context to justify a farcical """centrist""" both-sides position. Shine on, you intellectually dishonest diamond. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Captainant

[hayden_horn 11,402]

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't recall much chatter until after Kavanaugh, but I agree Garland definitely influenced that perspective. 

also, on this: kavanaugh was a flawed nomination with multiple credible accusations of sexual assault. however, the republicans, after stonewalling garland (and it wasn't just garland, as @Captainant points out - it was many judge positions mitch stonewalled), who was an eminently qualified candidate, confirmed kavanaugh on strictly partisan lines, though some with admittedly furrowed brows. it's because mitch was and is a bad faith player in the senate, and is acting in a rather unprecedented way alongside a president understanding that he has the full republican backing of the senate and that he can basically get away with anything. and because mitch has done this, the independent judiciary is packed with many unqualified, but definitely partisan judges, kavanaugh arguably among them.

this has the result of democrats floating ideas to rectify this situation, including some suggesting that we should pack the courts. please note that i don't agree with this strategy, but we are in a position where we have to pray to god and satan and every deity in between that RBG doesn't die, because it will cause a tilt to the supreme court that may take a generation to overcome.

if garland was confirmed, then trump still would have had a nomination, and the court would be more organically balanced, influenced by the electorate through the executive nomination process. but mitch doesn't give a fuck about decorum, so why should the democrats? 

please note, i think they should, but i understand the sentiment of fighting fire with fire.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,846]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Isn't that pretty much exactly what sotomayer did?

 

 

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Of course it is.  And in that dissent she suggested that the court is too biased to operate correctly.

These are bad takes and you should feel bad.

[Brisketexan 106,880]

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

These are bad takes and you should feel bad.

Correct.  A judge on a multi-judge court observing that the majority is applying similar legal principles and analysis inconsistency based on the identity of the parties is an appropriate (albeit unusual) observation and basis for dissent.  It's unusual and alarming for a judge to say that because....well, because the conduct itself is unusual and alarming.  Her dissent notes that this is beyond the ordinary ideological bents that particular judges might have, and is driven instead by the identity of the party himself.  That's bad, and if she is genuinely observing that (and mind you, she sits in conferences with these justices where they are being much more open and frank than in their writing), then she is arguably obligated to speak out.

[Anastasis 23,717]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah it definitely had nothing to do with the stonewalling of a record number of judicial nominations by McConnell which led to the record number of nominations by trump. 

Classic anastasia - misrepresent the fact pattern and leave out critical context to justify a farcical """centrist""" both-sides position. Shine on, you intellectually dishonest diamond. 

Keep huffing captain.  I didn’t dismiss any of Mitch’s other actions in terms of influencing what is now a common democratic position on court packing. 
 

I agree with Hayden that Kavanaugh was unsuitable, but probably for different reasons. The way he handled himself during the hearings was disqualifying. 
 

I also don’t recall a lot of chatter among major democrats about court packing until after Kavanaugh. I very well may have missed that development. I am sure if I missed something you will point it out to me. 

[Anastasis 23,717]

18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

These are bad takes and you should feel bad.

Just trying to test out how concerned you guys actually are about normalization of the notion that the court is incapable of operating as a result of its political bias. We’ve already established the list of justifications that will be used when it comes time to pack it ideologically. 

[Captainant 28,527]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Keep huffing captain.  I didn’t dismiss any of Mitch’s other actions in terms of influencing what is now a common democratic position on court packing. 

again with the intellectual dishonesty lol. You didn't dismiss any of mitch's actions, but you sure fucking didn't qualify any of your statements with his malfeasance while only talking about the dems reaction against it to mitigate the artificial imbalance instigated by mcturtle. If you don't understand how that is a misleading way to frame an earnest discussion, then you've got some pretty fucking poor verbal skills.

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I also don’t recall a lot of chatter among major democrats about court packing until after Kavanaugh. I very well may have missed that development. I am sure if I missed something you will point it out to me. 

It's almost like the pot didn't start to boil over until the GOP railroaded through a clearly unqualified candidate who lacked judicial temperament. But I'm sure that if the dems had said anything about it before, you wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand as being over-reactionary and saying something akin to "elections matter". 

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just trying to test out how concerned you guys actually are about normalization of the notion that the court is incapable of operating as a result of its political bias. We’ve already established the list of justifications that will be used when it comes time to pack it ideologically. 

jUsT aSkInG qUeStIoNs hurrrrr everybody but me is biased and reactionary hurrrrrrr let me just ignore that the court is already packed ideologically while accusing the other side of wanting to pack it ideologically to undo the damage that I won't mention while discussing this topic

[Anastasis 23,717]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

again with the intellectual dishonesty lol. You didn't dismiss any of mitch's actions, but you sure fucking didn't qualify any of your statements with his malfeasance while only talking about the dems reaction against it to mitigate the artificial imbalance instigated by mcturtle. If you don't understand how that is a misleading way to frame an earnest discussion, then you've got some pretty fucking poor verbal skills.

I was responding to a poster who called back to garlands treatment as a motivation, and agreed with them, however noting that I don’t recall the issue as being discussed openly until after Kavanaugh. The rest of this is you framing that exchange in a misleading way. But please, teach me about the “verbal”. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Anastasis

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

yep. i haven't eliminated carbs, because they are delicious and because beer, but we have massively cut them back and feel a lot better for it.

anyways, back to trump shit:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/donald-trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-sonia-sotomayor-recusal/index.html

 

 

i know it was posted above, but this is normalizing the idea in his base that the supreme court is too biased to operate correctly, which will pave the way for him to completely disregard their decisions regarding him, up to and including forcing him to release his taxes in the near term, or vacating the white house in the longer term. this is fucking dangerous shit, and i feel that roberts needs to take a firm stand. another one.

All of Trumps ideas about the court system are and always have been completely retarded.  Bad word.  Don't care.  Re-fucking-tarded.

[TwiceHorn 32,074]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it would be interesting to see a study of rulings by Ginsberg, et al VS those of the conservative justices and determine if evidence of actual bias exists.

It's quite possible the left-leaning justices are actually doing their job, and the right-leaning justices aren't, despite what Donald says.

They are really about the same.  They use verbal sophistry to cover a value-based decision in neutral principles.

[BLKNSTY 290]

emphasis and brackets mine.
replace sonia sotomayor with antonin scalia and the trump administration with the obama administration, would you be making the same argument?
it's a fucking dissent. it's supposed to be critical and make a message. this is more disingenuous republican bullshit. they are fundamentally dishonest. 

well I mean, it’s Anastasia. of course he wouldn’t.

[Mole 4,339]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

The one that Derka used the OU travel money to send a wreath?  Or do I remember that wrong

Good times. He turned 50 last month. I wonder if he kept clean.

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/97606-This-has-always-been-my-favorite-board-to-browse-so-I-thought-I-would-throw-this-here

http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/102516-Dr-Drunkenstein-please-explain-yourself

[Gil Bang 26,231]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32,586]

What could possibly go wrong, Chapter 8,722:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/college-senior-white-house-personnel-office-117493

Quote

The White House has hired a college senior to be one of the top officials in its powerful Presidential Personnel Office, according to three administration officials familiar with the matter.

 

Quote

James Bacon, 23, is acting as one of the right-hand men to new PPO director John McEntee, according to the officials. Bacon, a senior at George Washington University pursuing a bachelor’s degree, comes from the Department of Transportation, where he briefly worked in the policy shop. Prior to that role, while still taking classes, he worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he was a White House liaison, according to two other officials. At HUD, he distinguished himself as Secretary Ben Carson’s confidential assistant, according to two other administration officials.

 

 

Quote

Bacon worked for McEntee on the Trump campaign’s earliest days and also did some work on the advance team. He later did operations on the Trump transition. Bacon would have graduated on time if he had not taken time off from school to work on the campaign, an official said.

Bacon will be PPO’s director of operations overseeing paperwork and will assist on vetting. The role was previously filled by Katja Bullock, who is in her late 70s and was a veteran of the office in both Bush administrations, as well as the Reagan administration.

 

 

[threesheets 1,690]

GW huh?  What'd he pledge?

[RPM 26,621]

3 minutes ago, threesheets said:

GW huh?  What'd he pledge?

Kappa Kappa Kappa?

[Loch Ness Monster 3,533]

Most damning thing is 90+% of Republicans love Trump. I get rich people being Republican but lol everyone else.

[RPM 26,621]

16 minutes ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

I get rich people being Republican but lol everyone else.

Did you forget the Democrats elected a black man a few years ago? 

[Chad Fuck 18,134]

Which one of you lives in Denver?

[gmr548 16,694]

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Trump is wrong and should not be using his twatter platform to attack the judicial branch actions in this way.  That is not a hard thing to say, but I guess it needs to be said for the JDS's of the world. And I didn't vote for Trump last time, and won't vote for him this time. 

I just find it funny that somebody would get worked up at this point about "normalizing" the notion that SCOTUS cannot operate because of political bias. That ship sailed from port quite a while ago. To the extent that it is pretty common on the left to openly advocate court packing to shift the ideological balance of the court.   I think that Biden and Sanders are the only D candidates that have come out against it. 

This "both sides" can't be eaten without sauce. 3/10. 

[Anastasis 23,717]

4 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This "both sides" can't be eaten without sauce. 3/10. 

5/10 critique.  Better than playing a game of ad hominem cloaked as untestable counterfactual. 

[Nope 3,151]

I need you guys to convince my sativa-fueled brain that it’s overthinking this.

First Putin installs Trump to soften Americans on authoritarianism.

Next he installs Bernie to soften them on socialism.

Next....well the arithmetic isn’t hard from there, and the pendulum always swings back.

I’m wrong though, right?

Edited February 26, 2020 by Nope

[Anastasis 23,717]

Just now, Nope said:

I need you guys to convince my sativa-fueled brain that it’s overthinking this.

First Putin installs Trump to soften Americans on authoritarianism.

Next he installs Bernie to soften them on socialism.

Next....well the arithmetic isn’t hard from there, and the pendulum always swings back.

I’m wrong though, right?

open your eyes, look within.

 

[Nope 3,151]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

open your eyes, look within.

 

True...I’m formally entering the race, effective now.

[Nope 3,151]

#fuckhopevotenope

[Anastasis 23,717]

1 minute ago, Nope said:

True...I’m formally entering the race, effective now.

 

[F250 29,199]

26 minutes ago, Nope said:

I need you guys to convince my sativa-fueled brain that it’s overthinking this.

First Putin installs Trump to soften Americans on authoritarianism.

Next he installs Bernie to soften them on socialism.

Next....well the arithmetic isn’t hard from there, and the pendulum always swings back.

I’m wrong though, right?

[Captainant 28,527]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Better than playing a game of ad hominem cloaked as untestable counterfactual. 

Brain so big you don't address any of the points made about leaving out context in presenting the facts that back your position. 

[Anastasis 23,717]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Brain so big you don't address any of the points made about leaving out context in presenting the facts that back your position. 

 

4 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I was responding to a poster who called back to garlands treatment as a motivation, and agreed with them, however noting that I don’t recall the issue as being discussed openly until after Kavanaugh. The rest of this is you framing that exchange in a misleading way. But please, teach me about the “verbal”. 

 

 

[NWBuck 8,629]

5 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

What could possibly go wrong, Chapter 8,722:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/college-senior-white-house-personnel-office-117493

Guaran-Damn-Teed that the president selected this dude because his last name was Bacon. 

[staboner 5,084]

8 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

what i'm presupposing is...without an effective enforcement mechanism (ie, the executive branch), maybe the military doesn't drag him out of office, and we end up with a shattered republic. he's normalizing terrifying behavior.

ergo why i hope we do end up with the military, or somethingtary, dragging his ass of out office sooner rather than later. don't let the cancer spread further. not sure where else it can go, but whatever. 

vote quimby 

[Bookman 4,758]

13 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I don't recall much chatter until after Kavanaugh, but I agree Garland definitely influenced that perspective. 

Honestly, the Senate putting Kavanaugh on the Court, to me, is one of the most shocking things that has happened in my lifetime.

[High Plains Drifter 11,186]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

Honestly, the Senate putting Kavanaugh on the Court, to me, is one of the most shocking things that has happened in my lifetime.

 

The most shocking thing to me is that there are people who would vote for Biden or Warren who would not vote for Sanders, despite the fact that we have a retarded orange fascist running for re-election.

 

No offense to people of special needs intended.

Edited February 26, 2020 by High Plains Drifter

[Bookman 4,758]

Bernie Sanders, in my opinion, has very little appeal to the center. You’re shocked that the center won’t vote for somebody for whom there’s little appeal?

[Bookman 4,758]

I think the Democrats have a great chance to gain power in this country and seize it for a very long time. And they’re fucking it up right now.

[High Plains Drifter 11,186]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

Bernie Sanders, in my opinion, has very little appeal to the center. You’re shocked that the center won’t vote for somebody for whom there’s little appeal?

 

If we had at least a semi literate currently in the WH, I wouldn't be.

 

Of course Sanders doesn't appeal to the center. That should be of secondary concern to rational people when the other candidate is DoTArD.

[DDD Dad 14,647]

 
The most shocking thing to me is that there are people who would vote for Biden or Warren who would not vote for Sanders, despite the fact that we have a retarded orange fascist running for re-election.
 
No offense to people of special needs intended.

[Bookman 4,758]

Rational people are going to consider all the circumstances.

I'm never voting for a piece-of-shit, utterly corrupt, immoral, incompetent, failed businessman for President. But if my choices are him and a far-left candidate, that means I don't have any choices at all.

[WhatTheBuck 28,928]

9 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

The most shocking thing to me is that there are people who would vote for Biden or Warren who would not vote for Sanders, despite the fact that we have a retarded orange fascist running for re-election.

Do those people exist? If so, how do their numbers compare to the Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hillary? Or who actually voted for Trump? I've heard those people exist but I can't wrap my head around voting for the farthest right candidate in history because you can't vote for the farthest left candidate at least since FDR if not ever. 

I'd be willing to bet that, if Bernie wins the nomination, his Democratic opponents will rally behind him a lot faster and stronger than he did for Hillary four years ago. 

[Mo Horn 8,937]

This should be entertaining and sad, all at the same time. 

[Anastasis 23,717]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

Honestly, the Senate putting Kavanaugh on the Court, to me, is one of the most shocking things that has happened in my lifetime.

It was clearly a galvanizing event in terms of court packing proposals. Special interest groups popped up and started quite effectively pushing packing (/noNowThis).