Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:31 pm In two or four or six or eight years from now, if they take up the mantle of "compassionate conservatism" again,

I don't see that happening for a long time, if ever, again. Certainly not a current GOP moniker or marketing label. I would go so far as to say they are actively leaning away from that image, and embracing and doubling down on being hardasses, as it seems to have worked (and continues to). Hell, you don't have to look hard to see Trumpublicans (stole that from ya) actively mocking compassion these days.

Ultimately the proof of the US being a center right nation is that US institutions, after having been tilted further to benefit the right, result in right wing policies and politicians.

Ah yes, I'm sure the delay had nothing to do with poll watching and/or waiting for McConnell to bless this stance.

Collins has less spine than Romney. This is solely to pull a fast one over on voters.

Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

It was somewhat boneheaded for the Dems to speak of it at this point in the game.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:06 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

I’m confused. Cause I read a degree of sarcasm in LRs post, no?

So I’m not sure what’s being agreed to.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:13 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:06 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

I’m confused. Cause I read a degree of sarcasm in LRs post, no?

So I’m not sure what’s being agreed to.

I see several of my more left leaning friends on Twitter amplify exactly what LR's saying here almost daily.

Zarathud wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:56 pmCollins has less spine than Romney. This is solely to pull a fast one over on voters.

+1

Mainers aren't that dumb, either. We've seen what she's done over the last 4 years and even those of us that are half-asleep at the wheel aren't fooled.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:21 am

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:13 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:06 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

I’m confused. Cause I read a degree of sarcasm in LRs post, no?

So I’m not sure what’s being agreed to.

I see several of my more left leaning friends on Twitter amplify exactly what LR's saying here almost daily.

Including the gut wrenching sarcasm about foolishly heralding in the end of our country? I doubt it.

Perhaps I’m missing that you are agreeing with LRs sarcasm regarding liberal twitter posters.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:29 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:21 am

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:13 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:06 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

I’m confused. Cause I read a degree of sarcasm in LRs post, no?

So I’m not sure what’s being agreed to.

I see several of my more left leaning friends on Twitter amplify exactly what LR's saying here almost daily.

Including the gut wrenching sarcasm about foolishly heralding in the end of our country? I doubt it.

From how I read it, he was saying that packing/expanding the court would herald the end of the current incarnation of US government. LR would have to tell is whether that was sarcastic or serious.

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:21 am

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:13 am

pr0ner wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:06 am

Little Raven wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 7:02 pm

malchior wrote: Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:50 pm Not the most well thought out take. They don't have the votes. They don't have the President yet. Somehow in the middle of a pivotal election, people in tight races won't commit to a theoretical extreme measure and that is somehow predictive?

You have to remember that, according to Twitter logic, Democrats only ever lose elections because they aren't left-wing ENOUGH. If they would simply commit to this super extreme plan, then the voters would flock to reward them! Instead, by refusing to immediately get on board with an action that almost certainly heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government, they are proving themselves to be "spineless" and allowing the Republicans to "win" yet again.

Yep. 100% this.

I’m confused. Cause I read a degree of sarcasm in LRs post, no?

So I’m not sure what’s being agreed to.

I see several of my more left leaning friends on Twitter amplify exactly what LR's saying here almost daily.

I agree - I think you have a segment of people on the left who have seen the right stand strong together and rightly see that the Democrats have been comparatively politically incompetent. So they are breaking away somewhat from the Democratic core - the so called Bernie Bros. We will see how successful Bernie was at applying duct tape to get them to back Biden. Beyond the immediate election though their solution has so far been to try to devise positions/purity tests to anchor them politically. And ironically they want proclamations of support that effectively undercut their chance at gaining more power in the current system.

They seem to want to mimic what has been effective on the right. However, it isn't entirely the same and has a little bit of a Cultural Revolution feel to it. Some of the purity tests are over the top for example the people screaming at diners to raise their fists for BLM. That isn't widespread but it is a spark of it. The problem is that there aren't enough people aligned with them in the US to make this strategy work at the moment. Maybe it'd work if they had time but they are decades too late to start this project.

Oh, he was serious about it's possible effect , you and I both read that the same way.... and in being serious about that - he was sarcastic when he phrased the result like they, Those that were refusing to vote because Dems were not Left enough - understood that it almost certainly would heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government.

He was saying that this was twitter logic at play.

Your "Yep, 100% this" sounded ambiguous to me, as if you were perhaps agreeing with the Twitter Logic - and I do not think that LR was agreeing with the Twitter Logic.


(I am not arguing that this isn't a thing on twitter...)

"I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it's very important that we have nine Justices," Trump told reporters after discussing election issues with a group of Republican state attorneys general.

Having a ninth justice avoids the prospect of a tie vote in an election case, Trump said: “I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation."

It's telling that he already believes Roberts is against him. Anyone want to take bets that the Chief Justice is already campaigning amongst the other justices about how the Court has to be perceived as neutral? That's been Robert's theme -- his concern for the Court's legacy and legitimacy. Deciding an election, especially after 2000, probably would put an end to that.

Dogstar wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:53 am

"I think this will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it's very important that we have nine Justices," Trump told reporters after discussing election issues with a group of Republican state attorneys general.

Having a ninth justice avoids the prospect of a tie vote in an election case, Trump said: “I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation."

It's telling that he already believes Roberts is against him. Anyone want to take bets that the Chief Justice is already campaigning amongst the other justices about how the Court has to be perceived as neutral? That's been Robert's theme -- his concern for the Court's legacy and legitimacy. Deciding an election, especially after 2000, probably would put an end to that.

I'm not sure that Trump believes that Roberts is definitely against him. I think Trump knows for sure that Ginsburg was against him, and so that replacing her with someone who is supportive of him is a win for him.

I think that if the court ever shows clear bias, it casts doubt on any decision and the legitimacy of the "precedent" they set. That legacy is incredibly important to the stability of it going forward. Roberts should absolutely be against Trump wanting to install a clear threat to that.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:06 am I'm not sure that Trump believes that Roberts is definitely against him. I think Trump knows for sure that Ginsburg was against him, and so that replacing her with someone who is supportive of him is a win for him.

I was just going off the 4-4 quote from Trump. I'm not sure who else would be aligning with the liberal/progressive wing of the Court.

Unagi wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:40 am Oh, he was serious about it's possible effect , you and I both read that the same way.... and in being serious about that - he was sarcastic when he phrased the result like they, Those that were refusing to vote because Dems were not Left enough - understood that it almost certainly would heralds the end of the current incarnation of the US government.

Right but what does that mean? I have a bit of a different take on this. I believe many people are currently anchored to some phantom image of what the US government *is* right now. That phantom image ignores that we can't solve basic problems. That we move from crisis to crisis only surviving because our economic strength allows the powers to be to keep dumping money on problems. That our basic institutions are not functioning in anything approaching a normal state. That it's just some temporary condition attached to Trump instead of something that has been happening for a long-time.

I think the biggest misconception is that many are thinking we are the edge of some abyss that we are hoping to back away from. Instead I'd argue we are already deep in the abyss being dragged down and the speed of the descent is at question. Would 'packing the court' change that math? Not really, it just is another indicator of how big the problem has become. We've been seeing the Government essentially descend into dysfunction this entire century. Slower in the first decade, faster in the first half of the second decade, and a very steep decline in the second half of the decade that we are living through now.

In other words, what government are we trying to 'preserve'? The one where the Executive branch has been running around doing whatever it wants because there is no other way to govern? The one with Congress punching itself in the face daily? The one with a national party undermining elections? And the one relying on trust in a judicial system that has been infected with the political malaise?

El Guapo wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:06 amI'm not sure that Trump believes that Roberts is definitely against him. I think Trump knows for sure that Ginsburg was against him, and so that replacing her with someone who is supportive of him is a win for him.

This. He is always assessing loyalty. He would be right to be unsure of Roberts but Ginsburg was obviously not loyal to him.

Edit: It might not even be reality but I think his worldview is:

• Gorsuch - my guy - loyal.

• Kavanaugh - my guy - loyal.

• Alito - solid guy - loyal.

• Thomas - are you kidding? There is no question here - loyal.

• Roberts - he has made many mistakes - he is not a great judge -but still maybe loyal.

• Kagan - lib - not loyal

• Breyer - lib - not loyal

• Sotomayor - lib - not loyal

Append on another - my gal - loyal and that is all he cares about. He thinks that in the worst case he'll get this election to that court and they will side with him. I don't think it's a mystery why he has had a couple nominee candidates to the WH multiple times. He is assessing loyalty as the primary deciding factor.

I do think it's a mistake for Trump to perceive Gorsuch as loyal. Gorsuch might be conservative, but I think he's more likely to call balls and strikes (according to his judicial philosophy) on whatever actual case might appear in front of him regarding the election. I can't remember if it was Little Raven or Kurth that alluded to it earlier, but I think Trump has a mistaken view of how the Court actually operates as opposed to how he thinks it does.

Dogstar wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:32 am I do think it's a mistake for Trump to perceive Gorsuch as loyal. Gorsuch might be conservative, but I think he's more likely to call balls and strikes (according to his judicial philosophy) on whatever actual case might appear in front of him regarding the election. I can't remember if it was Little Raven or Kurth that alluded to it earlier, but I think Trump has mistaken view of how the Court actually operates as opposed to how he thinks it does.

I agree. The problem is that he has many in the Executive who reinforce that misconception. Especially now. So there is always the chance that indeed it isn't reality but like a child smashing his toys on the ground he might break something in the effort.

malchior wrote: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:37 am I agree. The problem is that he has many in the Executive who reinforce that misconception. Especially now. So there is always the chance that indeed it isn't reality but like a child smashing his toys on the ground he might break something in the effort.

... like a country?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's trainer says goodbye by doing push-ups in front of her casket.

I'm still amazed she's the first woman to lie in state. I couldn't have named someone else I thought would have, but it's still surprising.

Bryant Johnson

Over 30 years in the United States Army with 12 of those years as a member of a Special Forces Airborne Unit.

Over 19 years as a personal trainer to various military and civilian personnel, including high level Federal Court officials; Justices, Judges, Attorneys, and Clerks.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:31 pm

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's trainer says goodbye by doing push-ups in front of her casket.

I'm still amazed she's the first woman to lie in state. I couldn't have named someone else I thought would have, but it's still surprising.

Rosa Parks lay in honor.


Ginsburg's also the first Jewish person to lie in state.

I'm sure it will go great.

As always, it could be worse - I was worried that it would be Rao.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:27 pm I'm sure it will go great.

Silver lining: Barret belongs to the "People of Praise," a charismatic Catholic group that declares this:

People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them."

Looks like full socialism is right around the corner!

If I were him I would have picked Cotton to just give the middle finger to the whole country. I guess that's the one positive out of this that he didn't go that route.

Holman wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:49 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:27 pm I'm sure it will go great.

Silver lining: Barret belongs to the "People of Praise," a charismatic Catholic group that declares this:

People of Praise is a charismatic Christian community. We admire the first Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit to form a community. Those early believers put their lives and their possessions in common, and "there were no needy persons among them."

Looks like full socialism is right around the corner!

Seems less Marx and more Koresh.

Who calls themselves a “charismatic” group?

That sounds a bit cultish.

hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm Who calls themselves a “charismatic” group?

That sounds a bit cultish.

It's the freaky ones. Speaking in tongues, healing, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_movement

hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm Who calls themselves a “charismatic” group?

That sounds a bit cultish.

Charismatic Christians emphasize a feeling of spiritual uplift and energy that they believe derives from communion with the Holy Spirit. (Most of us learned the term "charisma" from D&D, but it has very specific theological roots that go way back.)

The term and the movement have grown in popularity since the 1970s, but there are charismatic elements in religious movements that have arisen all through Christian history, and especially since the Reformation. "Speaking in Tongues" or some sense of benign possession by the Holy Spirit is a hallmark, but it can also (loosely and casually) refer to a style of worship where expressive audience participation is encouraged.

It's more common to to see charismatic movements in Protestant denominations, but charismatic Catholicism has been growing in prominence in recent decades.

Neat, learned something new. I had never heard that before. Where I grew up, you were either Methodist, Baptist or heathen. Sometimes all three, depending on who had better pot luck socials that week.

Trump #SCOTUS front-runner Amy Coney Barrett, when asked whether Obama should be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year, said it's inappropriate when it would “dramatically flip the balance of power."

For the party without irony, this wont even make them bat an eye.