General US Politics

[Crysta]

1 minute ago, Hylian Air Force said:

It's less that they have bad policies, it's just that with the way American politics operates, they would be extreme and probably expand far beyond the scope of the original goal, and probably be overall unpopular because our education system keeps teaching us that unregulated capitalism is necessary for our society to function. What we want is usually far above what we need as a country. That's why we're in such deep shit.

I like how we stress out about what the socdems may hypothetically do and never elect them, then elect the fascists and compare those imagined hypotheticals against what they're actively doing.

[Lewyn]

I'm sorry but stuff that happened in the middle of the 1800s isn't really relevant to today.  What happened in 2016 is.  I know Mitch is a whiz at coming up for an excuse for whatever heinous behavior or action he does and it actually sounds smart unlike the idiotic ramblings of another excuse maker, Trump...however it is all the same.  Complete bull crap.  

Democratic socialist.  Bernie Sanders.  Oh the horror.  Free university, universal healthcare, higher minimum wage.  I dunno it would mean that even those working the worse paying jobs could at least get by and everyone would have health coverage.  Bernie about one of the most moral and genuine people there are.

Neo Fascist.  Donald Trump.  

Democratic socialists...please.  It isn't even close.  The danger of Bernie is maybe it raises deficit a lot, maybe some businesses who don't want to comply with new minimum wage law move overseas.  

The danger with Donald Trump is the end of democracy.

 

[Usana]

8 hours ago, Crysta said:

Okay, what social democratic policies are 75% as bad as neo-fascist policies? Court packing isn't it, because I guarantee if the situation was in reverse the party positions would just swap. 

Apparently I needed to make a disclaimer that I really didn't think would be needed.

Disclaimer: these numbers, 75 and 100, are complete ass pulls since I don't actually apply numerical values to every possible policy in order to get nice numbers and rather are made simply to convey that certainly one party is worse than the other in general, but also that in general I am highly dissatisfied with both parties. I could have used 50 and 80, 50 and 100, or even 60 and 90 and the point wouldn't have changed. 

As for court packing that is pretty damn terrible. It is quite literally setting it up to rule uncontested so that you may do as you please without risk of resistance. The court has been politicized and needs fixing, but court packing is going in the wrong way. It is quite literally further politicizing the court rather than making it less politicized.

 

As for if the party positions would swap. Probably. I make no attempt at hiding my dislike for both. However, the FDR example is rather interesting since it is effectively the positions swapped. I'll have to read up more to see if the republican s of the time were for court packing to offset all of FDR's picks. At work right now so can't do the research at the moment and don't know off the top of my head.

 

The history doesn't matter comment made by Lewyn in this thread I will need to address later. That will be a rant most likely and will take time and possibly further research.

 

Edit- 7:41AM - In hindsight that was probably too much snark to reply to what I read as snark and I basically dodged your question without explaination. Bad mood at work shouldn't have been online. Now too tired and sore and too much to do to try and come up with a better response. As for why no policy examples. I long ago got tired of bringing up examples except in very specific circumstances to specific arguments such as court packing here. It gets really tiring having both sides trying to rip your head off for having an opinion/stance that doesn't fit into a nice little box for them. But a quick view of where I come from with non-asspulled numbers. You know the ISideWith online quiz? When I took it back in the lead up to 2016 it placed both the Deomcrats and Republicans below 50 percent. So looking at my politics from a lens outside of myself, I apparently disagree with both parties more than I agree with them. I would probably disagree with that statement, but I certainly wouldn't question all the parties getting an F(less than 60) grade. /Edit.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Usana

[Garfield Faris Claus]

10 hours ago, Lewyn said:

The danger with Donald Trump is the end of democracy.

Why do you attach an inherent moral goodness to democracy? Because it "represents the people", as if the people aren't going to be represented in their decision to give the fascist demagogue another 4 years, another lifetime? Material conditions are the only thing that matters, everything else is K-12 manufactured western idealism.

Smh libs unironically thinking this was a defense of Trump omegalul

Edited September 23, 2020 by Mongolian Mongrel
CIA在找我

[Moblin Major General]

2 hours ago, Mongolian Mongrel said:

Why do you attach an inherent moral goodness to democracy? Because it "represents the people", as if the people aren't going to be represented in their decision to give the fascist demagogue another 4 years, another lifetime? Material conditions are the only thing that matters, everything else is K-12 manufactured western idealism.

 

Our quality of life is far behind that of most of the West, and is only deteriorating further by the day. Most of our health standards are being forced back to the 70s or before. There's no interest by Trump to look into alternative energy sources. Civil rights and civil liberties are at their most bleak since 1964. And you think someone who gamed the election won't try to do it again? That a president should be able to lose the popular vote twice in a row and win the office twice? The people did not elect Trump: the states did.

[Excellen Browning]

6 hours ago, Mongolian Mongrel said:

Why do you attach an inherent moral goodness to democracy? Because it "represents the people", as if the people aren't going to be represented in their decision to give the fascist demagogue another 4 years, another lifetime? Material conditions are the only thing that matters, everything else is K-12 manufactured western idealism.

 

Hahaha. You may have noticed that Trump is presiding over the greatest economic downturn since the founding of the country and the biggest loss of employment, by a country mile. And hasn't had any other economic policy other than benefiting himself and his super rich friends, at the cost of everyone else, including you. 

So even by your brokebrained standards, Trump is shit. (And Obama rules)

[Shoblongoo]

And again it all circles back to "beautiful, ugly thing about democracy is the people get the government they deserve."
 

6 hours ago, Mongolian Mongrel said:

Why do you attach an inherent moral goodness to democracy? Because it "represents the people", as if the people aren't going to be represented in their decision to give the fascist demagogue another 4 years, another lifetime? Material conditions are the only thing that matters, everything else is K-12 manufactured western idealism.

The efficacy ("goodness," if you wish to be moralistic about it) of a democracy presupposes the 'goodness' of its people.

Peoples that value community, working together towards a common good, rationality, and problem-solving are well served by democracy.

Peoples who care only about helping those they can immediately identify as [their people], see the needs of others as adverse to their own, reject information inconsistent with belief rather than belief inconsistent with information, and look for scapegoats instead of solutions are poorly served by it.

If the problem of America may be surmised in a single sentence:

Its that America is drunk on a warped idea of freedom that celebrates selfishness and stupidity as virtues.    
 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Etrurian emperor]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

And again it all circles back to "beautiful, ugly thing about democracy is the people get the government they deserve."

Though in this particular case they kinda didn't. The people rejected Trump in 2016 but because the electoral is ''quirky'' Trump still got to win the election. The people(or at least enough of them) saw through Trump but still got subjected to four years of him in charge. In this case America got the government they didn't deserve. 

[Garfield Faris Claus]

2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Hahaha. You may have noticed that Trump is presiding over the greatest economic downturn since the founding of the country and the biggest loss of employment, by a country mile. And hasn't had any other economic policy other than benefiting himself and his super rich friends, at the cost of everyone else, including you. 

So even by your brokebrained standards, Trump is shit. (And Obama rules)

Yes. And the fact that he is in power is the only relevant detail to material condition. America's great democratic republic did its work and put him where he is, and frankly you're a goddamn fool if you think him or people like him wouldn't have crept in all the same into a direct democracy. America is burning because of liberalism (specifically liberalism's vulnerability to fascist populism) and you can only think to add more liberalism. Maybe it's time you consider comparatively illiberal systems which accept authoritarianism on its face and searches instead to create better authoritarians.

Oh and Obama was better for material condition but probably not as much as you think. What I suspect is the more relevant detail to libs is that Trump is "less civil" than Obama. I wonder how much you'd really care about Trump is he put up the same polite southern disposition of Bush. 

Quote

Though in this particular case they kinda didn't. The people rejected Trump in 2016 but because the electoral is ''quirky'' Trump still got to win the election. The people(or at least enough of them) saw through Trump but still got subjected to four years of him in charge. In this case America got the government they didn't deserve. 

I don't know how I can say this any less ambigiously; direct democracy would've saved you against Trump in this particular timeline but it wouldn't have saved you from most of the policies you're in hysterics about. The dictatorship of capital always has its way. You've heard of manufactured consent, right?

Quote

Its that America is drunk on a warped idea of freedom that celebrates selfishness and stupidity as virtues.    

Chicken and egg (I say this knowing full well I'll get the same thing hurled at me at some point), the American conceptualization of freedom was weaponized to suit the interests of rootless oligarchs, first and foremost. No other country in the global north has such an easily malleable ethos, plus a pseudo-religion with a convenient creation myth and pantheon to boot.   

Edited September 23, 2020 by Mongolian Mongrel
more quotes

[Karimlan]

2 hours ago, Mongolian Mongrel said:

frankly you're a goddamn fool if you think him or people like him wouldn't have crept in all the same into a direct democracy. America is burning because of liberalism (specifically liberalism's vulnerability to fascist populism) and you can only think to add more liberalism. Maybe it's time you consider comparatively illiberal systems which accept authoritarianism on its face and searches instead to create better authoritarians.

Frankly, you're a goddamn fool for two reasons:

• Electoral Fucking College. Need I elaborate on the concept?
• For every "better authoritarian" out there, you have five despots. At least. 

So, what's to consider about comparatively illiberal systems, I wonder.

[Integrity]

to make it pretty clear when a dude literally blames "you libs" and says omegalul in a politics thread 100% guarantee he knows literally nothing

 

anyway gave him three weeks off we'll see if he was a troll or a moron 

 

as you were

Edited September 23, 2020 by Integrity

[Crysta]

19 hours ago, Usana said:

In hindsight that was probably too much snark to reply to what I read as snark and I basically dodged your question without explaination.

I don't really care about your snark and the arbitrariness of the numbers you tossed out. I was simply repeating what you contended. I'm not surprised you chose to fixate on that instead of actually answering the question.

Nor do I care about some online quiz you took.

Which policies socdem policies are comparable to fascism? You don't need to write a book -- but I'm not fishing for these longwinded and undoubtedly very researched and nuanced viewpoints of yours if you already put them in the thread. I'm sure you can get it down to a few sentences.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Crysta

[Lord Raven]

Five bucks says he'll tell you that you're a communist in some weird way

I remember last time I had to defend the concept of equity I was told that I was a commie 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Slumber]

Anyone wanna start a new political party with me?

I'm thinking of calling it the Guillotine Party.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Slumber

[Usana]

I am unsure of where the miscommunication/misunderstandings are stemming from. But it seems clear that something either isn't being explained in the correct way or understood correctly. Not knowing precisely where the error is occurring I am unsure as to how to explain to be understood. Probably best to reset and start again from the top. Perhaps a rehashing/rephrasing of the situation will make things clear.

On 9/22/2020 at 6:26 PM, Crysta said:

If you're still torn between the neo-fascists and the democratic socialists -- as if they're in any way equally bad -- then we have bigger problems.

This was the original comment replied to and while I do not think it was directed at me this is an open discussion thread and so I tossed in my 2 cents. Perhaps my interjection with an addition point of view has led you to view me as arguing from the point of view of the person your statement was originally directed at instead of my own view point?

On 9/22/2020 at 9:00 PM, Usana said:

Its less equally bad and both bad. I mean I don't care if the cesspit is 75percent shit or 100percent shit. I am not wanting to wade in regardless. So my tactical voting ends up becoming very narrowly focused so as to avoid walking in shit as much as possible and in general with the aim to prevent anyone from flipping the board completely. So scum as usual bugs me less than piles of new scum being added making the mess even worse. And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.

And my reply. My best suspicion is that my extrapolation in an attempt to explain how I feel ended up violating the KISS principle too severely and thus led to confusion. The reply could probably have been left purely at "Its less equally bad and both bad." I just thought that would be . . . too short and not really worthwhile as a reply in and of itself. So I extrapolated on my feelings and then shared how that tends to affect me when I resort to voting tactically.

On 9/22/2020 at 11:11 PM, Crysta said:

Okay, what social democratic policies are 75% as bad as neo-fascist policies? Court packing isn't it, because I guarantee if the situation was in reverse the party positions would just swap.

Here I could tell there was already some disconnect.  Hindsight seems to indicate that the use of percents ended up confusing the issue and led you to make a comment that I read as snark. I couldn't and still can't really tell for sure. Which led to me, in a bad mood, replying with hefty snark to what I thought was snark. Though again rereads of it make me less certain on my original reading of your statement being snark.

Given that my reply on this page is long enough that another quote would just seem excessive due to the garrulous nature of the post I will instead just sum it up. It is on this page so unlike the others this one is easier to refer back to if you fill I have missed something. In response to your response I attempted to make it clear that the numbers given weren't literal attempts at comparison and that I find both parties to be dissatisfying. OR both bad. Again not comparative.  Just both bad. I then went on to wonder aloud about the second part of your response and how it would be interesting for me to look up the history on the issue. Haven't done that yet. So nothing new to add there. I also brought up that my not bringing up a direct policy other than reiterating my stance on court packing may be perceived as dodging the question which wasn't my intent and so further extrapolated on that issue and why I don't particularly wish to just randomly pull polices out. I partook in this thread specifically on the court packing issues so it is the policy I am prepared to and willing to discuss at the moment. I am guessing that I failed to convey that between those two points that I had answered your question. The court packing is an example of bad and so you have your example. Question answered or I assumed.

This brings us to the current reply of yours.

9 hours ago, Crysta said:

I don't really care about your snark and the arbitrariness of the numbers you tossed out. I was simply repeating what you contended. I'm not surprised you chose to fixate on that instead of actually answering the question.

Confusion is strong here. As I have hopefully explained I have never contended anything about equally or even comparatively. My interjection's whole point was that the equally wasn't the issue. Just the bad. And as just stated I thought I did answer the question in the end since court packing is an example of bad. And for my interjection I only need a bad. Not an equally bad.

9 hours ago, Crysta said:

Nor do I care about some online quiz you took.

Probably under explained this one. But lets see if I can manage it this time. It is helped by Lord Raven's comment(assuming I have interpreted it as referencing me correctly). See I am used to folks assuming that my dislike of their party is emotional rather than logical based upon policy. I.E. I am accustomed to being called a commie or of calling others commies or whatever is popular at the time for name calling ones who don't fit into their particular little box. Anyone who doesn't side with either party/views both parties as bad has to get used to that eventually. In an attempt to short circuit that I brought up ISideWith which is decent sized and rather credible as far as these things go. Not sure if it fully qualifies as a VAA(Voting Advice Application) these days or not, but it has a lot of information and can serve as an interesting outside-in look for introspection purposes as well as a way to view the stances of various candidates if you don't follow politics closely enough to know in intricate detail everyone's stances. But, how would this short circuit such petty attempts at insults? Simply put, it is to show that I am not merely jumping on the commie hate train or whatever. It was to show that a 3rd Party observer(which is effectively the purpose the quiz serves) would easily determine purely based upon review of my policy preferences that I am highly dissatisfied with both parties. In other words, "both bad."

I thought I was clear on the purpose and point of bringing up ISideWith in my statement, but apparently I muddled something.


 

10 hours ago, Crysta said:

Which policies socdem policies are comparable to fascism?

Hopefully my attempts to communicate have worked better this time round. But to reiterate. My reply to your initial statement of "Its less equally bad and both bad" was not a statement lending itself to such comparisons. At no point did I ever say equally bad and while I can look back and guess that my attempt to extrapolate and explain how I feel could have lead to a comparative reading from you I have since tried to explain that such was not the point of the post.
 

10 hours ago, Crysta said:

You don't need to write a book -- but I'm not fishing for these longwinded and undoubtedly very researched and nuanced viewpoints of yours if you already put them in the thread. I'm sure you can get it down to a few sentences.

 

Not sure if snark or if just a result of the thinking I am saying equally bad or trying to directly compare rather than just stating both bad. But either way the result is effectively the same. Since my argument is just bad I would have to bring up why bad. And that would effectively require me to explain what I think is good. This gets very philosophical really fast. And quite frankly my life experience is that no one agrees with me, shares my view, or even wants to hear it and that such discussions just end up being a waste of time. So I don't do it. Instead I only discuss issues that I see pop up that are like the court packing in this thread. The court packing is an example of a very narrow discussion that I had, before jumping in, determined to be constrained enough that I could share my view point and argue without needing to try and get across how I process the world. Sometimes my determinations are wrong, I am only human. For example, I had thought that my initial reply to you was quite clear and wouldn't require much further extrapolation and instead would evolve into questions of how bad does something have to be before you are unwilling to wade in and are you sure the democratic party qualifies as too bad to wade in, etc. Clearly I was very, very wrong. As for explaining how I process things, it never seems to work. It always ends up bringing to mind when friends and such joke that I am not made of human parts. I used to find it funny myself, but nowadays I just find it tiring when I can't understand people or people fail to understand me and I can't seem to find a way to bridge the gap.

 

[Lord Raven]

She's asking you a very simple question. Context is that court packing makes you want to vote Republican. Her question is simply, what makes socdem as bad as fascism that you'd vote for literal fascists due to court packing?

The entirety of the post above was meaningless. We are at a point in the history of this country where one side is literal fascists. You can turn around and bothsides and "my politics and paradigms don't fit within the two party system" and the fact that you brought up numbers figuratively... And then we used those figurative numbers to ask you what your views are... And you obfuscate with this long post saying "see? That wasn't literal" when you missed the point entirely.

You even said that you didn't follow KISS (keep it simple, stupid?) And yet you spent an entire post on minutia completely irrelevant to what's being asked of you.

[Moblin Major General]

I should clarify that I agree that we should try to implement more progressive policies, but without moderates on either side, we will fall into a civil conflict similar to that of Spain in the 1930s.

[Usana]

7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

She's asking you a very simple question. Context is that court packing makes you want to vote Republican. Her question is simply, what makes socdem as bad as fascism that you'd vote for literal fascists due to court packing?

And I keep saying that there is no equally bad going on. Though this here does clue me on on something. If I read you right, you are saying the question is in regards to tactical voting rather than in what policies are equally bad as each other? That isn't how I read it at all. Nor do I see how that is the question looking back at it. But as I have said I have trouble understanding people at times so I'll go ahead and assume you can read her better than I.

Tactically voting is by its very nature kind of a dirty thing. You have basically decided to that some or even a significant portion of your values matter less than trying to obtain a particular result. Though you could argue that that is just standing by your strongest values I suppose, but either way the result is the same. Plenty of family are being hammered by blue no matter who folks since they have gone from staunch democrats to staunch green. As of last I heard they weren't willing to compromise their values to vote blue no matter who. But if they did that wouldn't be an issue. There is a reason tactical voting exists. The question is how high does the party's score with you have to be for you to consider them for a tactical vote. I figure for most people they have to at least agree with the person more than they disagree. Of course for it to be a tactical vote there would have to be someone who represents them more but has little to no chance of winning. In addition the difference between how well the two candidates being debated represent the individual also comes into play. For example if say someone has a 80 percent value with green but a 78 percent with blue(we'll just pretend red gets a 0). Well a lot of people probably wouldn't have an issue tactically voting blue unless they REALLY disliked the idea of tactically voting itself.However, if that same person instead had a 58 percent value with blue, they may view blue as swallowing too many of their values for them to stomach.  Exactly how strongly you disagree with red in this case would also come into play since you are more likely to swallow a significant portion of your values to keep red out.



So when it comes to court packing equaling bad. If there are only two parties likely to win as is the case in our system and one party is for and one party is against then to achieve your desired end one has to swallow some of their values and effectively compromise. The catch of course is that there is not a single issue. So you have to do this for every issue and then weigh your options. And some of this weighing will be considering how likely you think certain things would come to pass. If you think an issue has 0 percent chance to pass/come into effect than you probably won't weigh it very high even if it is absolutely horrific. Tactical voting is an ugly thing. It is all compromise and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Hows that old joke go? We have established what kind of voter you are, now we're just haggling over the price? Yeah its not originally voter, but I like this version better even if it doesn't fit as well as I would like.


In my post I explicitly stated

On 9/22/2020 at 9:00 PM, Usana said:

And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.

I thought this was fairly clear. But I guess not. The court packing suggestions if Democratic candidates took it seriously to heart would weigh down on the Democrat side. And as I have said I am already highly dissatisfied with both parties so it doesn't take a whole lot to put one under my threshold(I mean come on, as I said ISideWith already once said both score below 50, exactly how low do you think my cut off should be?). My estimation of weighing my options in that case would be that I couldn't let either party have any power. The idea is to limit the damage that can be done by deadlocking the government. I thought this was fairly straight forward and obvious. What other purpose would there be to intentionally lame ducking a government? What other path than deciding neither party can be trusted with power is there that leads up to intentionally lame ducking a government?

Questions aside this type of tactical voting is by far my least favorite. It basically requires gambling on guessing who wins what right. In neither case am I voting for a candidate or government but rather against. So to circle back.

54 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

what makes socdem as bad as fascism that you'd vote for literal fascists due to court packing?

Vote for? No I would merely be voting against. It just so happens that I would be voting against BOTH. Because while both aren't equally bad. Both are bad. Such tactical voting is effectively a vote of no confidence.


Though to end all this this all does depend on who is running and if the candidates in question that I am voting on are seriously considering it and exactly how all the other policies end up weighing in as well. And all of this has to be weighed and calculated with how likely I am to think any given policy is likely to be enacted and I also if intentionally aiming for a lame duck have to try and calculate potential damage that could occur if I guess wrong and whether or not that is worth the risk, which means I also have to come to a conclusion on just how much risk of being wrong is involved. You know basic tactical voting stuff. I hate it. And it gives me a headache. I would rather just vote for the candidate that best represents me. But every now and then the parties and their candidates I get to choose from manage to disgust me enough to make have to start considering to tactically vote. Actually that isn't quite true. I think it mostly started in the Trump era. I can't think off too much before then that made me feel like I had to consider voting tactically. Another reason to dislike Trump I guess. Oh and part of the republican ticket comment was because no way is Trump getting the vote so if I am aiming to split my vote to try and lame duck the government that kinda means having to consider republicans for everything else. Hopefully though the Democrats don't go nuts with Court Packing and I don't have to worry much about tactical voting and can just vote for who best represents me.

[Lord Raven]

7 hours ago, Usana said:

Vote for? No I would merely be voting against. It just so happens that I would be voting against BOTH. Because while both aren't equally bad. Both are bad. Such tactical voting is effectively a vote of no confidence.

Well, one party is significantly better than the other.

Vote of no confidence doesn't exist in our system. Throwaway votes do, sounds like you're really into those.

You realize that court packing is suggested as essentially an anti-fascist measure right? So you're saying you're fine with fascism and pro-white anti-minority rhetoric because you're merely dissatisfied.

No offense, but a lot of your paragraphs seem to be full of bloat, and you're better off saying "I'm voting third party because I think fascism is only a little worse than social safety nets" because that's literally all i got out of your post.

Also, Trump winning another term isn't a lame duck government. It's a government that will literally dismantle anything resembling progress and cause us to regress as a society. Say goodbye to Roe v Wade and anything about accessible abortions; say goodbye to federally legal marijuana, obergefell v hodges, voting rights, etc...

I think to say both sides are bad is downplaying what the Republicans are aiming to do.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Lord Raven

[Usana]

16 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

you're better off saying "I'm voting third party because I think fascism is only a little worse than social safety nets" because that's literally all i got out of your post.

But that isn't what I am saying at all and is a complete strawman of my position. It also ignores that I have stated that I am pressured more and more into attempting tactical voting which would result in not voting 3rd party rather than voting for the person who actually represents me.

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You realize that court packing is suggested as essentially an anti-fascist measure right?

It sounds more like a measure to completely negate check and balances so that any party that happens to not have a lame-duck government can be completely dictatorial and force through whatever policies they want regardless of constitutionality or even possibly the will of the people. It would further politicize the court and remove what little legitimacy it happens to have left. It is basically the opposite direction we want to go. Rebalancing the court could potentially be part of further reforms to the court to fix the politicization, but the ideas I have seen bandied around are less fixing the rules so that we don't have such issues in the first place and more flipping the board because one side are frustrated they lost their gamble. Going back to FDR who got to fill 8 seats in the end, If the republicans of the time had gained both branches right after FDR should they have packed the court with 8 extra seats to restore balance? Though you would have thought that would have been a wake up call that something wasn't right and that the system needed to be looked at. A single president really shouldn't be getting that/this much influence over the supreme court.

52 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Also, Trump winning another term isn't a lame duck government.

If the democrats get congress he will be rather limited. Conversely if Biden gets the presidency and congress is republican then he would be rather limited. If a party doesn't have both they are "one that is weak or that falls behind in ability" compared to a party when they do have both. Kinda the definition of lame duck. I am not using the more specific terms of lame duck president or lame duck sessions which are rather more pointed terms. But rather lame duck in the general sense. Clearly I wasn't clear that that was my intent and I'll try to avoid the term in the future, even though it is naturally comes to me, since it appears to cause confusion.

[Moblin Major General]

30 minutes ago, Usana said:

If the democrats get congress he will be rather limited. Conversely if Biden gets the presidency and congress is republican then he would be rather limited. If a party doesn't have both they are "one that is weak or that falls behind in ability" compared to a party when they do have both. Kinda the definition of lame duck. I am not using the more specific terms of lame duck president or lame duck sessions which are rather more pointed terms. But rather lame duck in the general sense. Clearly I wasn't clear that that was my intent and I'll try to avoid the term in the future, even though it is naturally comes to me, since it appears to cause confusion.

If Trump wins, even if the Senate is won by the Democrats, Trump can veto legislation, and his conservative Supreme Court will probably shoot down anything that can navigate past his veto. That's why he must go, no matter what. 

[Crysta]

GOP: We stole the court
DEMs: We're gonna steal it back
GOP: That's not fair
Pundits: Not fair
GOP: We'll just steal it more
DEMs: Ok we won't do it
Pundits: Dems avoid destroying America
GOP: We're gonna steal it more
DEMs: Fuck!
Pundits: So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt
Voters: ThEy'Re BoTh BaD hOw CaN i ChOsE

I'm done with moderates, quite frankly. I was one myself not too long ago, but their fingerprints are all over this and I don't need any further reminders of how terrible at actual governance they are.

Republicans do not exercise restraint and they're never expected to in the same way the Democrats are. They do not limit themselves because others have chosen to. They exercise every ounce of power they possess. The only reward for abstemiousness is failure. 

[Karimlan]

In a different time, all this rhetoric about not choosing the lesser of two evils (because it's still evil) would make a lot more sense. Not in the current political climate, though. 

You have the chance to show your disgust at an administration that has run roughshod over the conventional bipartisan lines of thinking a few of us have (not to mention the other brilliant fuckups they've managed to serve up). Don't squander it.

side note: Crysta illustrated the point a lot more succinctly than I'd ever do. Thanks :D

Edited September 25, 2020 by Karimlan

[XRay]

18 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I'm done with moderates, quite frankly. I was one myself not too long ago, but their fingerprints are all over this and I don't need any further reminders of how terrible at actual governance they are.

Without moderates, Democrats do not stand a chance at winning. You cannot govern if you did not even win the election.

This is 2020. This is not 2050. Texas is still purple at best and plenty of boomers are still alive and kicking. Expanding the Court by two every four or eight years when the political pendulum swings the opposite direction does not seem like a good idea in my opinion.

What is the point of expanding the court when Republicans can do the same thing next time during the next election cycle and undo the Court's previous decisions?

[Crysta]

7 minutes ago, XRay said:

Without moderates, Democrats do not stand a chance at winning. You cannot govern if you did not even win the election.

Republicans have been pandering to the loudest, more conservative voices of the party for as long as we've been alive. They don't know how to govern but that's apparently not a requirement they need to win lmao

7 minutes ago, XRay said:

This is 2020. This is not 2050. Texas is still purple at best and plenty of boomers are still alive and kicking. Expanding the Court by two every four or eight years when the political pendulum swings the opposite direction does not seem like a good idea in my opinion.

Tit for tat is the only option unless you're fine with being a doormat.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Crysta