(03-19-2020 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  I'll vote for Biden in the general. As Bernie would want.

If you actually want some of Bernie's proposals to have a chance you need liberal judges, justices, and control of house and senate and executive. Voting for someone outside of Biden wrenches that. I don't like Joe Biden but I do like progressive policies having a fighting chance.

No it doesn't. Biden will do absolutely zero that's actually "progressive." He'd take a beating in the 22 midterm (because all incumbents do) and then in 24 he either runs for re-election or anoints one of these neo-liberal clowns who endorsed him to be his "heir." So then we get probably at least 8 years of more neo-liberalism and then the eventual swing-back to the right. I'm gonna go with option 2, which is tell him to go fu*k off, work to get the senate blue to mitigate as much harm as possible in the courts, get the anti-Trump blue wave in 22, and then fight for a real progressive in 24 who could have a shot at an actual majority that could accomplish something.

progressives and progressivism

(03-19-2020 11:50 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  I'll vote for Biden in the general. As Bernie would want.

If you actually want some of Bernie's proposals to have a chance you need liberal judges, justices, and control of house and senate and executive. Voting for someone outside of Biden wrenches that. I don't like Joe Biden but I do like progressive policies having a fighting chance.

No it doesn't. Biden will do absolutely zero that's actually "progressive." He'd take a beating in the 22 midterm (because all incumbents do) and then in 24 he either runs for re-election or anoints one of these neo-liberal clowns who endorsed him to be his "heir." So then we get probably at least 8 years of more neo-liberalism and then the eventual swing-back to the right. I'm gonna go with option 2, which is tell him to go fu*k off, work to get the senate blue to mitigate as much harm as possible in the courts, get the anti-Trump blue wave in 22, and then fight for a real progressive in 24 who could have a shot at an actual majority that could accomplish something.

Well as long as you're on the phones or walking the streets to flip the senate, that'll do much more good than a singular presidential vote.

(03-19-2020 12:24 PM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  progressives and progressivism

Sorry you prefer our future to be a 1950's throwback.

(03-19-2020 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'll still vote Dem down ballot and hope to flip the Senate (in NC Thom Tillis is very beatable) because the idea of having Gorsuch 2.0 replacing RGB is a nightmare to me, but if you took the courts out of it and asked who I think would govern closer to my beliefs it's probably Trump.

Interesting that replacing someone who is a judicial activist and legislates from the bench with a constitutionalist is a nightmare for you. Says a lot about your political philosophy and why it's a good thing that it's crashing and burning before our eyes.

(03-19-2020 09:52 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 09:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 08:54 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 08:48 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 08:45 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'd rather lose forever than be on the side of corporate owned hacks like Biden and the rest of the DNC. Trump and company are legit out here offering more "socialist" policies during this crisis than the means tested bull crap that ghouls like Pelosi are peddling. Trump is out here joining the #YangGang while Pelosi is trying to say "hold on now we can't give anyone money unless we means test it and make sure all of our cronies get a cut."

Trump isn't joining the "Yang Gang"... he's offering help during an unprecedented global pandemic. Once it is over, the checks will stop.

Did the entire point I'm making just fly that far over your head? Ok I'll spell it out for you, the party that claims to be the one "for the average person" is out here stalling stuff over some bullsh*t means testing while "MUH EVIL ORANGE MAN" is actually legit trying to get money as quickly as possible to people who desperately need it. So when the DNC hacks tell me "I have to fall in line to stop the orange menace because he's so evil" I look around and say to myself yeah I don't think Trump's a good person but you clowns are owned by the most evil people on the planet. Trump is legit saying yes this is not stuff the GOP ever normally does but these aren't normal times and we are going to protect the American people the best we can. Obviously I know he's doing it for selfish reasons, to boost he re-election chances, but at least it shows me that sometimes his narcissism and doing the right thing can align.

I'm guessing this means a vote in November for Trump?? He's way less bought and paid for than the alternative........and as a bonus he's not showing signs of dementia daily!!

What the Left just can't seem to figure out after 4+ years is that Trump is finally that independent candidate that we on the Right have been hoping for since Reagan, to do the things that EVERYBODY has been talking about for decades. He just had to run as a Republican instead of a Democrat because those ideas were Conservative and not Liberal, and they hate him and us for it because he put a wrecking ball to the system that they love so much.

You hit it right out of the ballpark Eagle. He is exactly like you said. A Good Rino, unlike the bad one, (Mitt) that aligns with the Demonic Party. Trump has embraced the viewpoints of the majority of Republicans but also has done and is doing what is best for the country regardless of whether it looks too much Rooseveltish. He knows that the economy can't tank and has to perform high wire stunts to save the country. Fortunately, he has a net below him, the American people that have common sense and would vote for him because WE know this emergency wasn't of his doing.

I was having my haircut and the prez and VP were on tv and my barber was badmouthing both of them. Since he had he scissors and I didn't want an OOPS moment from him I kept my mouth shut. LOL

What I can't understand is why do you BJ want to destroy this country with a communist agenda without worrying anything about the coming generations. I'll be dead before a Commie takes over (which I hope never happens) but I rue the day where my grandkids have to live (or die) from it. You'll be dead too so it's seems you couldn't care less about them. It seems that you're blind to the effects of a socialist/communist government when you have so many good examples of how bad it is in the world. Sometimes you show signs that you have "some" common sense and then you take a dive into the shallow end of the pool with your thinking.

(03-19-2020 12:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'll still vote Dem down ballot and hope to flip the Senate (in NC Thom Tillis is very beatable) because the idea of having Gorsuch 2.0 replacing RGB is a nightmare to me, but if you took the courts out of it and asked who I think would govern closer to my beliefs it's probably Trump.

Interesting that replacing someone who is a judicial activist and legislates from the bench with a constitutionalist is a nightmare for you. Says a lot about your political philosophy and why it's a good thing that it's crashing and burning before our eyes.

If you are of the belief that Gorsuch doesn't want to "legislate from the bench" then I don't know what to say to you. He has gone out of his way to make it clear he wants to kill Chevron Deference, which essentially gives every judge in the country have the ability to "legislate from the bench" over any federal agency decisions they don't agree with. The level of judicial activism opening that can of worms up is a nightmare. Basically you will have activist groups on both sides of the isle suing over any government agency's interpretation of a statute, clogging up the courts with nonsense and allowing far left or far right judges to be able to interpret ambiguous statutes however they'd like.

(03-19-2020 01:04 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  What I can't understand is why do you BJ want to destroy this country with a communist agenda without worrying anything about the coming generations. I'll be dead before a Commie takes over (which I hope never happens) but I rue the day where my grandkids have to live (or die) from it. You'll be dead too so it's seems you couldn't care less about them. It seems that you're blind to the effects of a socialist/communist government when you have so many good examples of how bad it is in the world. Sometimes you show signs that you have "some" common sense and then you take a dive into the shallow end of the pool with your thinking.

You are right there's not a single example anywhere in the world where you can have an actual social safety net that protects the vulnerable citizens of a country and have a functioning capitalist economy. Can't be done. Zero examples of that anywhere in the world at the moment.

(03-19-2020 01:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 12:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:02 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'll still vote Dem down ballot and hope to flip the Senate (in NC Thom Tillis is very beatable) because the idea of having Gorsuch 2.0 replacing RGB is a nightmare to me, but if you took the courts out of it and asked who I think would govern closer to my beliefs it's probably Trump.

Interesting that replacing someone who is a judicial activist and legislates from the bench with a constitutionalist is a nightmare for you. Says a lot about your political philosophy and why it's a good thing that it's crashing and burning before our eyes.

If you are of the belief that Gorsuch doesn't want to "legislate from the bench" then I don't know what to say to you.

Give me some examples of him legislating from the bench.

Quote: He has gone out of his way to make it clear he wants to kill Chevron Deference, which essentially gives every judge in the country have the ability to "legislate from the bench" over any federal agency decisions they don't agree with.

He has? When? Specific instances.

Quote:The level of judicial activism opening that can of worms up is a nightmare. Basically you will have activist groups on both sides of the isle suing over any government agency's interpretation of a statute, clogging up the courts with nonsense and allowing far left or far right judges to be able to interpret ambiguous statutes however they'd like.

We already have activist groups legislating through litigation. The Obama administration made "sue and settle" the favored tactic of every leftist special interest group out there.

(03-19-2020 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 01:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 12:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  [quote='b0ndsj0ns' pid='16743814' dateline='1584630141']
I'll still vote Dem down ballot and hope to flip the Senate (in NC Thom Tillis is very beatable) because the idea of having Gorsuch 2.0 replacing RGB is a nightmare to me, but if you took the courts out of it and asked who I think would govern closer to my beliefs it's probably Trump.

Interesting that replacing someone who is a judicial activist and legislates from the bench with a constitutionalist is a nightmare for you. Says a lot about your political philosophy and why it's a good thing that it's crashing and burning before our eyes.

If you are of the belief that Gorsuch doesn't want to "legislate from the bench" then I don't know what to say to you.

Give me some examples of him legislating from the bench.

Quote: He has gone out of his way to make it clear he wants to kill Chevron Deference, which essentially gives every judge in the country have the ability to "legislate from the bench" over any federal agency decisions they don't agree with.

He has? When? Specific instances.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gorsuch+...e&ie=UTF-8

Pick your source that you'd prefer for his opposition to Chevron Deference.

(03-19-2020 01:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 01:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 12:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  [quote='b0ndsj0ns' pid='16743814' dateline='1584630141']
I'll still vote Dem down ballot and hope to flip the Senate (in NC Thom Tillis is very beatable) because the idea of having Gorsuch 2.0 replacing RGB is a nightmare to me, but if you took the courts out of it and asked who I think would govern closer to my beliefs it's probably Trump.

Interesting that replacing someone who is a judicial activist and legislates from the bench with a constitutionalist is a nightmare for you. Says a lot about your political philosophy and why it's a good thing that it's crashing and burning before our eyes.

If you are of the belief that Gorsuch doesn't want to "legislate from the bench" then I don't know what to say to you.

Give me some examples of him legislating from the bench.

Quote: He has gone out of his way to make it clear he wants to kill Chevron Deference, which essentially gives every judge in the country have the ability to "legislate from the bench" over any federal agency decisions they don't agree with.

He has? When? Specific instances.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gorsuch+...e&ie=UTF-8

Pick your source that you'd prefer for his opposition to Chevron Deference.

TBH I think his opposition in the cases listed was appropriate, and there's also the fact that Chevron Deference violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The Legislative Branch creates the law, the Executive Branch enforces it, and the Judicial Branch determines if the laws are Constitutional. With the Chevron Deference the Executive Branch, particularly unelected, unaccountable, nameless, faceless bureaucrats, create law. That's not how our system is supposed to work.

(03-19-2020 11:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 08:12 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  And Trump is probably gonna go ahead and flank the Dems and destroy the party completely and advocate for M4A. I'm only like half joking.

Trump was an early advocate for some form of single payer... and I don't mean in 2012, but in 2015 or so. This always confounded me about the left on this issue. He wanted to throw out O-care, but so did they.
I said in 2008, if Obama wanted to do what he claimed he wanted, he would expand MedicARE rather than trying to bribe states to expand MedicAID. M4A, but just like now the wealthy can ignore that and buy a replacement... The middle class can pay for a Medicare Advantage plan, or they can keep it and buy a supplement... and the states could then redirect MedicAID to paying the 20% copays for the poor and still to covering CHIP and maternity issues and other things that Medicare doesn't. I would scale Medicare back somewhat for people under 65 or whatever, creating SOME shared costs for those who work, but that's a detail.
It would still be expensive as hell and that may or may not pass, but at least it would be honest. I can easily see a Republican, especially one who isn't really a Republican... supporting this as a compromise. Maintains the state's control, leaves room for competition and only expands that which the feds control already.

Basically Bismarck.

Exactly, creating another system instead of expanding what existed and increasing withholdings never made any sense.

From what I've seen a lot of them are going the "wait for the boomers to die" or "we can't vote our way to what we want" route. The way I see it, his campaign was rendered obsolete from the get go for a few reasons:

1. His working class support largely went Republican in 2016 and many of them didn't bother to look back.
2. His staffers were pulled from an echo chamber of DSA millennials that steered his campaign away from kitchen table issues and towards racial and alphabet people activism, alienating a lot of potential voters.
3. Replacing the working class was wealthy and educated whites, especially women. Wealthy people want the safe bet and Obama-style woke neoliberalism is right up their alley. It's also the "return to normal" they keep screaming about, even though Trump's presidency has been largely uneventful apart from how he's behaved. I don't know how a guy that calls people fat and threatens to fight them at rallies is any better, but I don't have TDS, so...
4. The black vote was never going to show up for him. They wanted the Obama guy. You can't win a Democratic primary without the black vote.
5. Even his most die-hard supporters devolved into purity spiraling and turned on him when he accepted Joe Rogan's nomination, including AOC.

For progressive revolutionaries, they sure spent all of their time looking backward.