U.S. Politics: Great Men Master trends

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Do you believe this was ultimately his undoing?

I dunno about his undoing per se (the Iran Hostage Crisis and failed rescue attempt didn't help), but it's definitely why he did not achieve policy successes at least in his first two years when he should have been able to easily.

[The Anti-Targ]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You haven't provided any names of rethugs etc. in power and office who are what you describe.

This is what is called the so-called illiberal left because it costs money and coddles the poor, women, people who aren't white and who aren't cis.  And abled.

 

I wasn't aware the original statement was making such a claim. Only that such people do exist. And you've been provided with examples of that.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That doesn't sound 'liberal' or socially conscious to me.  Sounds like Clarence Thomas.

Entirely your prerogative to redefine words, but they also tend to believe in wealth redistribution policies and higher taxes and spending They are socially conservative in a lot of ways and fiscally liberal.

Thomas, by comparison, is staunchly against any welfare systems because he firmly believes that the government will never ever be supportive of black people and anything they do do will allow white people to accept current outcomes. He is a devout black nationalist and absolutely not fiscally liberal, and supports whatever policies will reduce government authority and power (especially at the federal level) to get there.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno about his undoing per se (the Iran Hostage Crisis and failed rescue attempt didn't help), but it's definitely why he did not achieve policy successes at least in his first two years when he should have been able to easily.

Good to know history can rest this at Reagan's feet for once and all. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Good to know history can rest this at Reagan's feet for once and all. 

Who knows?  Really not sure about the counterfactual.  Even if Reagan didn't make that backroom deal, he still may have won.  A lot of people - and the polling - attribute Reagan's win to the final debate ("are you better off now than you were four years ago?").  I don't really buy that either, but it is worth mentioning.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Who knows?  Really not sure about the counterfactual.  Even if Reagan didn't make that backroom deal, he still may have won.  A lot of people - and the polling - attribute Reagan's win to the final debate ("are you better off now than you were four years ago?").  I don't really buy that either, but it is worth mentioning.

Unlikely, especially if the public was aware of his treachery. And given the public details of the Iran-Contra affair, he gets no benefit of the doubt. 

Carter for all his qualities was a bad president, but Reagan was infinitely worse, and the horrible culture we have today rests in large part because of the actions he took and the lies he sold. But I don't need to tell you that.

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Unlikely, especially if the public was aware of his treachery.

Well, ok.  The counterfactual I was thinking of was Reagan didn't do it and the hostages were released before the election.  If Reagan was caught doing it before the election?  Yeah, sure, that's different.

[ants]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

5 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

A person can be chiefly socially conservative and economically to the left.

Names please?  Also, how does that work?

In Australia a lot of blue-collar union members fall into this category. Those who vote for the Labour party, and are a big reason why although the party is to the left, it isn't that far to the left. Those types believe in social welfare systems, support for workers, taxing the rich. But they can be still quite bigoted and not particularly progressive. My father who was in management absolutely falls into this category. He'd never vote for conservatives. But he probably voted against SSM in the Australian plebiscite and will probably vote against the Voice in the upcoming referendum. 

In the US I believe the blue collar workers probably fall into the same category, to the degree that Republicans and Trump did quite well at peeling them away from Dems in 2016. Similarly in the UK the "blue-wall" Northern electorates voted for the Tories at the last election to get Brexit done. 

Also in the US, I believe the African American community can often fall into this category. There are many who want egalitarian justice, tax and welfare systems but are very socially conservative. There are lots of articles around how the AA community splits Democrat more because of what Nixon and subsequent Republican politicians did than because of any particular alignment with the Democrat party position. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

There was a time when the most annoying illiberal types were actively using the word, and using it like it was a membership pass at Club Righteous, so that's why I had no problem using it to describe them. 

this qualifier of using it self-refrencionaly I think may discount a lot of the people you’d still call woke.

5 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I wouldn't describe those people as woke; that's like the disaffected older blue collar/ labor crowd, many of whom have gone MAGA, or are at least more sympathetic to them. I only used woke for people who fall within progressive social ideologies but have seemingly forgotten or underplay the whole liberal side of things.

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So it’s not just people on the left who show iliberal traits.

But people you perceive as doing “illiberal”things in the name of socially progressive causes

5 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Instead, people simply bicker over whether "wokeism" is a thing at all, or a right wing mirage...without trying to discuss the illiberal nuttery that's really what the people on the left are trying to complain about.

I’m not privy to assume every accusation has merit.

Not to deny the existence of such cases.

Just yesterday I saw people ready to dox(and as far as I know doxxed one) and ruin the lives of a couple women who were sitting at a public bench that a trans state house representative worked at the day before(she was barred from the chambers because she complained about her colleagues wanting trans people dead), people in this were too quick to cry bigot.

Some cases the complaints will have merit.

Sometimes I think it’s people, especially libs, but I’ve seen leftists do this too being concerned about their own personal stature within a group being displaced through having an unwoke and framing this personal trepidation as mere pragmatic politicking or in pursuit of a  grander purpose.

Sometimes it’s libs who are more concerned about appearing more intellectual than conservatives by disparaging tactics conservatives use effectively to actually their goals of setting a social standard. Or libs who fetishize the idea of compromise being good by itself.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Loud and proud Nazis deserve no quarter:
 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Loud and proud Nazis deserve no quarter:
 

 

She’s only saying this because she hates same sex couples.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

She’s only saying this because she hates same sex couples.

And yet all the rumors about her are that she loved cucking her now ex-husband.

She really makes for a great fake Christian. Jesus himself wouldn't even piss on her face if he found her in the desert begging for water. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

They're frauds and always have been:

Quote

 

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor provided the early framework that steered the outcome in the dispute over the 2000 presidential election and ensured George W. Bush would win the White House over Al Gore, Supreme Court documents released on Tuesday show.

Memos found in the newly opened files of the late Justice John Paul Stevens offer a first-ever view of the behind-the-scenes negotiations on Bush v. Gore at the court. They also demonstrate the tension among the nine justices being asked to decide a presidential election on short deadlines.

The documents opened at the Library of Congress help reveal how the now-retired O’Connor, the first woman on the high court and a justice steeped in politics from her early days in the Arizona legislature, partnered with Justice Anthony Kennedy, effectively squeezing out an argument advanced by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

The strong hand of O’Connor, who was at the ideological center of the court in this era, is not wholly surprising. O’Connor was also known for trying to get out ahead of deliberations, and her four-page memo was circulated to colleagues even before oral arguments. Her move may have guaranteed that she and Kennedy had the greatest influence on the final “per curiam” opinion that spoke for a five-justice majority.

That final 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision stopped county recounts for Florida’s decisive presidential electors and gave then-Texas Gov. Bush the victory over then-Vice President Gore.

The five conservative justices (O’Connor, Kennedy, Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) sided with Bush. The four liberal justices (Stevens, with David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) aligned with Gore and dissented angrily.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/bush-gore-oconnor-supreme-court-2000/index.html

Again, this cannot go overlooked:

 

Quote

and her four-page memo was circulated to colleagues even before oral arguments

She had her mind made up before the case was even argued. Shocking people from the most corrupt profession ever cannot be believed at all. I'd trust a gang member before a lawyer. At least they'd maybe have the dignity to shoot you in the face first.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet all the rumors about her are that she loved cucking her now ex-husband.

She really makes for a great fake Christian. Jesus himself wouldn't even piss on her face if he found her in the desert begging for water. 

 

If you're not man enough to hold on to MTG, then you're not a real man.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

She had her mind made up before the case was even argued. Shocking people from the most corrupt profession ever cannot be believed at all. I'd trust a gang member before a lawyer. At least they'd maybe have the dignity to shoot you in the face first.

 

Have you ever worked in an appelate court or argued before an appelate court?  Do you have any direct experience of how appelate courts operate or how their decisions are made?  Are you under the mistaken impression that “oral arguments” are required by appelate courts or that function like a “new trial”?  They don’t.  

If O’Connor was giving tips to the Bush campaign… that was highly inappropriate.  If she was discussing the case with her colleagues prior to orals and had a  good idea of how she was going to vote… that’s perfectly normal.  

Appelate courts are not trial courts. Oral arguments aren’t “trials”.  FYI.

[DMC]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If O’Connor was giving tips to the Bush campaign… that was highly inappropriate.  If she was discussing the case with her colleagues prior to orals and had a  good idea of how she was going to vote… that’s perfectly normal.  

Appelate courts are not trial courts. Oral arguments aren’t “trials”.  FYI.

Yeah, I agree with this.  Still doesn't change the fact five SC justices stole the election due to their partisan biases, but this has been known for 23 years.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, I agree with this.  Still doesn't change the fact five SC justices stole the election due to their partisan biases, but this has been known for 23 years.

As I have said for 23 years… I disagree with the 5-4 decision.  The 7-2 holding… I agree with.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

Have you ever worked in an appelate court or argued before an appelate court?  Do you have any direct experience of how appelate courts operate or how their decisions are made?  Are you under the mistaken impression that “oral arguments” are required by appelate courts or that function like a “new trial”?  They don’t.  

Nope, and don't have to. The point is the narrative that once you put on the robe your political views go away is bullshit. Always has been and anyone who ever argued otherwise is either a liar or a sucker. And it's completely fucked up that the highest court in the land has the lowest standards and self-governs. It's a joke.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nope, and don't have to. The point is the narrative that once you put on the robe your political views go away is bullshit. Always has been and anyone who ever argued otherwise is either a liar or a sucker. And it's completely fucked up that the highest court in the land has the lowest standards and self-governs. It's a joke.

I agree there needs to be a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices.  I agree that Thomas is way beyond the pale.  

I don’t agree that there is anything strange or inappropriate for Appelate Court or Supreme Court level Judges and Justices, after reading written briefs and before listening to oral arguments, discussing a case or sharing their point of view on a case with their colleagues.  

There are no “facts” to dispute or be established in an Appelate Court case.  The Court is limited to the record before it that was created at trial in applying the law to the facts of a given case.  That’s how Appelate law works.

The hyperventilating about O’Connor talking to her colleagues about “Bush v. Gore” before Orals is ridiculous.  That happens all the time.  

I disagree with the position offered in the 5 member plurality that ended the vote count but there is nothing, at all, improper or sinister about the Court discussing the case prior to Oral Arguments.  

You attempting to conflate such with the ongoing problems with Supreme Court Justice ethics is inappropriate and inaccurate.  They are absolutely not the same thing.