Brantt wrote:Good night for the country last night. Far-left progressive politics look to be out of the equation for at least the next 4 years. Although Bernie is going to eviscerate Biden in the next debate.

JUburton wrote:Appears my initial post greatly underestimated the party consolidation in the wake of South Carolina. Has all the feeling of the party 'deciding' without it being incredibly obvious. Pretty good politics to be honest.

JUburton wrote:Appears my initial post greatly underestimated the party consolidation in the wake of South Carolina. Has all the feeling of the party 'deciding' without it being incredibly obvious. Pretty good politics to be honest.

jamiethekiller wrote:

Brantt wrote:Good night for the country last night. Far-left progressive politics look to be out of the equation for at least the next 4 years. Although Bernie is going to eviscerate Biden in the next debate.

ah yes, the far left politics. the government ensuring that people earn money, have health care, can afford to get an education and getting kids into the education system sooner. such wild radical ideas that the government would actually try to put its citizens in the best position to succeed locally and globally.

TomatoPie wrote:And I confess that I'm less alarmed about how he's stacking the lower courts because they may be useful to curb the excesses of the Democrat majorities soon to come.

slugsrbad wrote:

JUburton wrote:Appears my initial post greatly underestimated the party consolidation in the wake of South Carolina. Has all the feeling of the party 'deciding' without it being incredibly obvious. Pretty good politics to be honest.

Yea. This was classic politics, there is nothing shady about it outside of the normal sliminess of political maneuvering.

CalvinBall wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:jerseyhoya, tomatopie, and werthless got everything they wanted policy-wise over the last 20 years and then were surprised to find that out that their party was fueled by racism, sexism, and xenophobia and their country defined by inequality, but now we take their advice as the way forward

You're half right.

For 40 years, not just 20, I saw the GOP as people like Bill Kristol, the Bushes, Rick Wilson, Tara Setmayer, Nicole Wallace. IOW, decent people who want to improve the lives of all Americans, just like Libruls do - they just see a different path. My YUGE mistake was thinking that folks like these represent the bulk of Republicans. Trump did not change the GOP, he merely revealed it to a party fueled by racism, sexism, and xenophobia. So you're spot on there.

But the Trump Crime Syndicate has not delivered "everything I wanted policy-wise over the last 20 years." What Trump has done is mostly 100% opposite. Good conservatives are pro-immigration. We're free trade advocates. We're for smaller government, but not by firing or driving out the competent government employees. I've never been aligned with the bible thumping arm of the GOP; I'm a social liberal who understands that progressive values advance no matter who is in the white house.

The only area where I agree with Trump is his first SCOTUS appointment. And I confess that I'm less alarmed about how he's stacking the lower courts because they may be useful to curb the excesses of the Democrat majorities soon to come.

are you going to vote for biden if he is the nominee?

Uncle Milty wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:And I confess that I'm less alarmed about how he's stacking the lower courts because they may be useful to curb the excesses of the Democrat majorities soon to come.

Are you at all concerned about the individual appointees stacking the court? Not enough evidence yet but it appears partisanship may trump jurisprudence for some of them. Or at the very least the lack of diversity since the great majority are handpicked by Leonard Leo and The Federalist Society?

CFP wrote:Getting far ahead of myself here, but if Biden wins and the Senate remains at let's say, 52-48 Rs, does RBG retire anyway? Can't imagine any Rs would want to vote for whoever Biden nominates. Does she hold on to 2023? Not sure what the Senate maps look like in 2022.

CFP wrote:Getting far ahead of myself here, but if Biden wins and the Senate remains at let's say, 52-48 Rs, does RBG retire anyway? Can't imagine any Rs would want to vote for whoever Biden nominates. Does she hold on to 2023? Not sure what the Senate maps look like in 2022.

CFP wrote:Getting far ahead of myself here, but if Biden wins and the Senate remains at let's say, 52-48 Rs, does RBG retire anyway? Can't imagine any Rs would want to vote for whoever Biden nominates. Does she hold on to 2023? Not sure what the Senate maps look like in 2022.

slugsrbad wrote:

CFP wrote:Getting far ahead of myself here, but if Biden wins and the Senate remains at let's say, 52-48 Rs, does RBG retire anyway? Can't imagine any Rs would want to vote for whoever Biden nominates. Does she hold on to 2023? Not sure what the Senate maps look like in 2022.

Merrick Garland finally gets his due.

Gimpy wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

CFP wrote:Getting far ahead of myself here, but if Biden wins and the Senate remains at let's say, 52-48 Rs, does RBG retire anyway? Can't imagine any Rs would want to vote for whoever Biden nominates. Does she hold on to 2023? Not sure what the Senate maps look like in 2022.

Merrick Garland finally gets his due.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are in their early-mid 50’s. Garland is in his late 60’s. We need to go younger with dem appointed SCOTUS noms at this point.

slugsrbad wrote:Bloomberg out.