Donald Trump

[Dax777]

I suppose the other hope is that his voter base has turned Trump into a "thing" and not a "man". Hence why some of his hangers on lost in their own bids to win something -- there's only one Trump. Obviously some can't actually support his behavio(u)r but they can support the ideas they think he/he says he stands for, which also conveniently means they don't have to give his behavio(u)r a second thought. Such rationalization is incompatible with how I think, and is also incompatible with how they live their day-to-day lives (they wouldn't let Trump near their dogs, let alone their daughters), but maybe Trump 2.0 definitionally can't enjoy the support of the original. Of course I share your worry that if they'll vote for Trump, they'd vote for anyone in future, so it's pretty easy to conclude this is a race to the bottom. Certainly makes me feel like other candidates are permanently immune from criticism for moral failures, law-breaking, etc. And of course those who supported Trump cannot ever use said behavio(u)r as a criticism ever again.

In fairness, I'd be far more comfortable with Trump around my daughters than I would Biden.

Biden is a raging creep. But I'm sure you found an excuse to forgive that part of him to vote for him, right?

 

[Dax777]

In fairness MSC, I see Foggy’s point while at the same time understanding yours and what you are ‘protesting’ about.
I won’t go quite as far as saying you are perfectly correct in your summation of the situation, but have a think about it yourself.
Supposing you are perfectly correct. Then what is the alternative for America.
It becomes a race to the bottom. The only way of winning is to be more underhanded/dishonest/divisive and self serving than the other lot.

Personally I think Dax has this worked out a long time ago although I’m sure that’s not the way he’d present it.

America is fucked as far as I’m concerned. I would have zero interest in the place. However I’m sure they’ll do great without me.

I'm here for the ride just like everyone else. I've got nothing worked out.

I'm however not as pessimistic as you are. All that said, I think the better campaign won.

@Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese I won't say Trump has the support of the billionaires class. I think that was Kamala.

Trump has Musk, true. But Kamala raised over a billion dollars. Spent a hundred million a week, and ended up blowing over a billion and still ended up in a 20 million dollar debt

It's insane how incompetent that crew was... But we digress.

 

[west didsblue]

I think the first step would be a cap on campaign donations and spending to diminish the power of corporate interests and hopefully diminish the sway of the lobbying system.
That is one thing, then some form of PR.
As for populism and populists I don't have a solution, but I'm pretty sure the likes of trump (and farage here) feed off a hatred or almost Pavlovian response from the liberal left to their every utterance to create the polarisation and division their politics needs to succeed.

Whatever rules are introduced Trump would break them and get away with it. That’s already a proven fact. The fact he’s stacked the highest court in the land with supporters means there’s no hope he can be held to account.

America’s fucked as a nation that looks after its citizens. It is well on its way to becoming an entity run by its largest corporations for the benefit of their shareholders with no heed for the wellbeing of its inhabitants. The population will either become customers of the corporations if they can afford it or will just eventually die off. Some would argue it’s pretty much there already but assuming they get rid of social security and affordable care there’ll be nothing left for anyone who needs help just to survive.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I'm here for the ride just like everyone else. I've got nothing worked out.

I'm however not as pessimistic as you are. All that said, I think the better campaign won.

@Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese I won't say Trump has the support of the billionaires class. I think that was Kamala.

Trump has Musk, true. But Kamala raised over a billion dollars. Spent a hundred million a week, and ended up blowing over a billion and still ended up in a 20 million dollar debt

It's insane how incompetent that crew was... But we digress.

I think any presidential candidate has to be in the pocket of billionaires otherwise they wouldn't get near running for office.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I think the first step would be a cap on campaign donations and spending to diminish the power of corporate interests and hopefully diminish the sway of the lobbying system.
That is one thing, then some form of PR.
As for populism and populists I don't have a solution, but I'm pretty sure the likes of trump (and farage here) feed off a hatred or almost Pavlovian response from the liberal left to their every utterance to create the polarisation and division their politics needs to succeed.

So what do Democrats feed off of then? Why are you so one-sided? Your argument doesn’t make any sense.

We keep coming back to the same thing — if one side won’t get the the mud and voters ignore the mud-covered candidate, what is the solution?

BTW — A cap on campaign donations makes it MORE likely the rich take over political roles because then they spend their OWN money.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I think any presidential candidate has to be in the pocket of billionaires otherwise they wouldn't get near running for office.

Harris didn’t grow up rich. Walz clearly isn’t in the pocket of the rich and he was a VP candidate and governor of a fairly large state with a pretty big rural/urban divide. The majority of US voters didn’t care.

 

[KS55]

I deleted the parts of your response that was off-topic. I left the 3rd paragraph in because it's tangentially related.

To go back to you original claim:

[The SCOTUS judges all lied at their confirmation hearing. “Roe v Wade is completely safe in my hands.”]

To be specific, the above claim is false, correct?

And when you put the bolded words in quotes, that too was false, correct? if not, do you mind providing the evidence of where the quote was pulled from?

Now you are being silly. The context shows quite clearly that I Was attempting to sum up the statements of several people in one sentence. Perhaps I should have used single inverted commas.
The fact remains that SCOTUS had no valid reason to overturn a precedent, for which you need to a special point of law or a distinguishing feature. There were none.
Statements like “ I have no agenda” were clearly shown by later events to be lies.
You are just trying to obfuscate. Out.

 

[Username Required]

Now you are being silly. The context shows quite clearly that I Was attempting to sum up the statements of several people in one sentence. Perhaps I should have used single inverted commas.
The fact remains that SCOTUS had no valid reason to overturn a precedent, for which you need to a special point of law or a distinguishing feature. There were none.
Statements like “ I have no agenda” were clearly shown by later events to be lies.
You are just trying to obfuscate. Out.

The fact remains that SCOTUS had no valid reason to overturn a precedent.

It's NOT a fact. It's your opinion.

From 2013.

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Ginsburg, the well known sexist fascist believed that SCOTUS was wrong in it's decision because it was ACTIVIST and too broad. The problem with Roe is that it removed the legislatures of the states from the issue when there was an increasing movement to legalize abortion in the states through the action of their courts and legislatures. Yes, she agreed with the decision in the narrowest sense, but she disagreed with it's rationale and scope. Bad law is bad law and a bad rationale is a bad rationale.

From 1992.

A narrower decision, she felt, was normal and proper judicial behavior, and if the court had exercised more restraint, the country would not have had the decades of controversy we have witnessed. Given that state legislatures were already leaning toward liberalization of abortion statutes, abortion would have soon become widely legal through legislative means, with broader support. In that sense, Ginsburg implied, Roe was counterproductive.

In other words, Roe was NOT normal and proper judicial behavior.