Yeah, sorry, four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same, even if they sometimes support the same bad policies.
I mean to be fair the Democrats trotted out an obscenely draconian immigration bill that was basically every Republicans wet dream about the border and the only reason it didn't pass was because it included Ukraine funding and the Republicans didn't want to give Biden a win.
Call me crazy, but giving the Republicans everything they want just to gain small concessions is bonkers and makes it seem like Democrats really don't have that much of a problem with horrific policies that Republicans want.
The Democrats leaned on DREAMers for like a decade and were going to fucking throw them under the bus with that border bill in a way that screamed "Political capital is used up, fuck them DREAMers!"
They are not the same but Democrats spend way too much time trying to make deals with people who only want to hurt them and others so they can be seen "reaching across the aisle."
I'm pretty sure they did that knowing the Republicans would reject it. It was political brinksmanship.
The Senate Democrats also reintroduced the bill on its own, and let the Republicans vote against it. This was absolutely a political move on their part, letting the GOP tear itself apart arguing about whether they should've voted for or against it. They're taking advantage of the existing tensions and divisions within the party to weaken them.
and brinskmanship is a good thing? That's how you catch the car and end up the villain. It's the brinksmanship that Republicans played for a decade that led to Donald Trump getting elected. Do not make the mistake of thinking the Democrats are somehow immune to that effect.
It wasn't brinksmanship, in my opinion. As evidenced by this.
The best way party officials are spinning this is that he is expecting the courts to issue a stay right away and this run up is to give the ACLU enough warning to have the case ready to go.
This is just more brinksmanship.
And if they call his bluff, which leaning Conservative the courts just might, he's now got to either rescind the order in shame or deal with a Republican PR wet dream for the rest of the campaign season.
When you shut down the border based on numbers and automatically deny asylum to anyone who was too late it turns into a physical game at the border. The 2nd or 3rd time someone announces the border is back open everyone who wants asylum is going to run for it, creating huge crowds. The RNC is going to have cameras there and what do you think the headline is going to be? It's not going to be, "Biden Tough on Border". It's going to be stuff like, "Chaos at Border!", "Biden Loses Control", "Border States Deploy Armed National Guard"
Doubling down on the tactic doesn't make it not brinksmanship. And it does signal he has no problem abandoning his base.
Fuck me, it's just like how Trump said "we need to stop testing for COVID" and then Biden never said it out loud, but he just stopped funding testing for COVID but didn't say the words "we need to stop testing for COVID." He just did it instead of saying it and somehow everyone was fine with it.
That is hardly giving the Republicans everything they want.
As I have already said- just because the parties can agree on some bad policies doesn't mean they are the same.
four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same
Biden isn't on Twitter, so we can ignore the wars and the concentration camps and the Cop Cities and the deteriorating climate.
He picks different supreme court justices though and has some different head of agencies, though. That alone makes a big difference.
Dems had the opportunity to stop up the ACB nomination in 2020 the same way Repubs blocked Garland in 2016. In fact, it would have been easier. Feinstein only had to hold up the vote for three months compared to McConnell's twelve. Dems waved her through, the same way Joe Biden's Judiciary Committee waved through Clarence Thomas back in 1991, months before Bill Clinton took office.
Its not enough to say which Presidents are picking the nominees. The senatorial strategies are totally different. Republicans hold Dem nominees hostage while Dems rubber stamp whatever assholes the GOP cough up.
Had Dem Senators punted on Thomas and ACB when they had the opportunity, the SCOTUS of today would look totally different.
Since I didn't get a response from the other person, perhaps you could explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked.
What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson? Just explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked since both parties are the same.
What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson?
We would have more Judge Jacksons on the court if the Dem Senate had played hardball with Republican Presidents. And taking Thomas out of circulation in 1991 would have changed the Bush v Gore decision in 2000, which would have meant President Al Gore seating even more Judge Jacksons in his subsequent terms.
No Thomas means no Bush Jr. No Bush Jr means no gerrymandering greenlit by Ashcroft's DOJ. Which would have promised more state level liberal courts in places like Texas and Wisconsin (ie, more state court Judge Jacksons). Which would have curbed the rise of white nationalism following Obama's election in 2008. No GOP capture of Florida through mass disenfranchisement of black voters. No extended legacy of GOP rule in Georgia, for the same reasons. No War on Immigration in Arizona and Colorado and Texas, forcing those states farther and farther to the right. All of which would have precluded a Trump presidency in 2016.
No Trump means we don't have to worry about who he'd pick for SCOTUS.
That is still not an explanation for why judge Jackson would be the sort of SCOTUS judge Trump would pick if both parties are the same.
Its an explanation for why a judge approved by Joe Biden is going to give us another Trump presidency.
I didn't ask for that explanation.
If you aren't able to explain why Trump would pick a justice like Jackson when both parties are the same, just say so.
I didn’t ask for that explanation.
Because you don't want Joe Biden carrying any culpability for the current 6-3 Conservative Majority.
We've got multiple Republican SCOTUS nominees who took office on his watch. We know what that leads to, because we know the outcome of Bush v Gore. We know what eight years of Bush did to the country and how it led directly to the election of Trump.
So why would four more years of Biden - a man who gave us the courts that gave us Bush and Trump - produce a majority of Judge Jacksons? He appears far better at seating judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.
Why can't you just admit you won't give me the explanation I asked for a long time ago?
Why would I want a President who put Thomas on the bench?
That's pretty strawman of you. Assuming he's operating in bad faith; how does appointing Judge Jackson stop the ratchet effect? That's what we're talking about here. I happen to think he's operating in good faith, just to his donors instead of his constituency. But the effect is the same, holding the status quo that the GOP sets. Why hasn't Mayorkas purged ICE in an attempt to reform it? Where are the wide ranging investigations of the human rights abuses that were so well reported during the Trump administration? Biden's goal was never to bring things back in line, it was to keep the lights on and keep the money flowing to the donors. Some of whom run private detention centers.
No, we were talking about how the two parties are exactly the same. If they are exactly the same, Trump would have the same reason for picking justice Jackson as Biden. So what is that reason?
I understand that's your straw man. But that's not what the other people in this thread are saying.
That is not my straw man, that is exactly the order of the conversation. I was told both parties are the same, I asked if that was true, what Trump's reason for picking Jackson would be.
No one has come up with an answer.
But one person has tried to argue with me in this thread that Harriet Miers was a feminist and sent me to some Christian website to prove it, so that was amusing.
You know we can just read the thread right?
Can you?
The ratchet effect isn't the same thing as saying they're the same. It's saying the Democrats have no interest and have taken no action in rolling back Republican abuses.
Yeah, sorry, four years of Trump vs. four years of Biden should really have put to rest the idea that both parties are the same, even if they sometimes support the same bad policies.
I mean to be fair the Democrats trotted out an obscenely draconian immigration bill that was basically every Republicans wet dream about the border and the only reason it didn't pass was because it included Ukraine funding and the Republicans didn't want to give Biden a win.
Call me crazy, but giving the Republicans everything they want just to gain small concessions is bonkers and makes it seem like Democrats really don't have that much of a problem with horrific policies that Republicans want.
The Democrats leaned on DREAMers for like a decade and were going to fucking throw them under the bus with that border bill in a way that screamed "Political capital is used up, fuck them DREAMers!"
They are not the same but Democrats spend way too much time trying to make deals with people who only want to hurt them and others so they can be seen "reaching across the aisle."
I'm pretty sure they did that knowing the Republicans would reject it. It was political brinksmanship.
The Senate Democrats also reintroduced the bill on its own, and let the Republicans vote against it. This was absolutely a political move on their part, letting the GOP tear itself apart arguing about whether they should've voted for or against it. They're taking advantage of the existing tensions and divisions within the party to weaken them.
and brinskmanship is a good thing? That's how you catch the car and end up the villain. It's the brinksmanship that Republicans played for a decade that led to Donald Trump getting elected. Do not make the mistake of thinking the Democrats are somehow immune to that effect.
It worked.
This time.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1
It wasn't brinksmanship, in my opinion. As evidenced by this.
The best way party officials are spinning this is that he is expecting the courts to issue a stay right away and this run up is to give the ACLU enough warning to have the case ready to go.
This is just more brinksmanship.
And if they call his bluff, which leaning Conservative the courts just might, he's now got to either rescind the order in shame or deal with a Republican PR wet dream for the rest of the campaign season.
When you shut down the border based on numbers and automatically deny asylum to anyone who was too late it turns into a physical game at the border. The 2nd or 3rd time someone announces the border is back open everyone who wants asylum is going to run for it, creating huge crowds. The RNC is going to have cameras there and what do you think the headline is going to be? It's not going to be, "Biden Tough on Border". It's going to be stuff like, "Chaos at Border!", "Biden Loses Control", "Border States Deploy Armed National Guard"
Doubling down on the tactic doesn't make it not brinksmanship. And it does signal he has no problem abandoning his base.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-executive-order-asylum-border-7cd0b0f28e298036ad1fc6b0c78961e1
Is this political brinksmanship?
Fuck me, it's just like how Trump said "we need to stop testing for COVID" and then Biden never said it out loud, but he just stopped funding testing for COVID but didn't say the words "we need to stop testing for COVID." He just did it instead of saying it and somehow everyone was fine with it.
That is hardly giving the Republicans everything they want.
As I have already said- just because the parties can agree on some bad policies doesn't mean they are the same.
Biden isn't on Twitter, so we can ignore the wars and the concentration camps and the Cop Cities and the deteriorating climate.
He picks different supreme court justices though and has some different head of agencies, though. That alone makes a big difference.
Dems had the opportunity to stop up the ACB nomination in 2020 the same way Repubs blocked Garland in 2016. In fact, it would have been easier. Feinstein only had to hold up the vote for three months compared to McConnell's twelve. Dems waved her through, the same way Joe Biden's Judiciary Committee waved through Clarence Thomas back in 1991, months before Bill Clinton took office.
Its not enough to say which Presidents are picking the nominees. The senatorial strategies are totally different. Republicans hold Dem nominees hostage while Dems rubber stamp whatever assholes the GOP cough up.
Had Dem Senators punted on Thomas and ACB when they had the opportunity, the SCOTUS of today would look totally different.
Since I didn't get a response from the other person, perhaps you could explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10420523
What does any of that have to do with Judge Jackson? Just explain why Judge Jackson is the sort of SCOTUS justice Trump would have picked since both parties are the same.
We would have more Judge Jacksons on the court if the Dem Senate had played hardball with Republican Presidents. And taking Thomas out of circulation in 1991 would have changed the Bush v Gore decision in 2000, which would have meant President Al Gore seating even more Judge Jacksons in his subsequent terms.
No Thomas means no Bush Jr. No Bush Jr means no gerrymandering greenlit by Ashcroft's DOJ. Which would have promised more state level liberal courts in places like Texas and Wisconsin (ie, more state court Judge Jacksons). Which would have curbed the rise of white nationalism following Obama's election in 2008. No GOP capture of Florida through mass disenfranchisement of black voters. No extended legacy of GOP rule in Georgia, for the same reasons. No War on Immigration in Arizona and Colorado and Texas, forcing those states farther and farther to the right. All of which would have precluded a Trump presidency in 2016.
No Trump means we don't have to worry about who he'd pick for SCOTUS.
That is still not an explanation for why judge Jackson would be the sort of SCOTUS judge Trump would pick if both parties are the same.
Its an explanation for why a judge approved by Joe Biden is going to give us another Trump presidency.
I didn't ask for that explanation.
If you aren't able to explain why Trump would pick a justice like Jackson when both parties are the same, just say so.
Because you don't want Joe Biden carrying any culpability for the current 6-3 Conservative Majority.
We've got multiple Republican SCOTUS nominees who took office on his watch. We know what that leads to, because we know the outcome of Bush v Gore. We know what eight years of Bush did to the country and how it led directly to the election of Trump.
So why would four more years of Biden - a man who gave us the courts that gave us Bush and Trump - produce a majority of Judge Jacksons? He appears far better at seating judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.
Why can't you just admit you won't give me the explanation I asked for a long time ago?
Why would I want a President who put Thomas on the bench?
That's pretty strawman of you. Assuming he's operating in bad faith; how does appointing Judge Jackson stop the ratchet effect? That's what we're talking about here. I happen to think he's operating in good faith, just to his donors instead of his constituency. But the effect is the same, holding the status quo that the GOP sets. Why hasn't Mayorkas purged ICE in an attempt to reform it? Where are the wide ranging investigations of the human rights abuses that were so well reported during the Trump administration? Biden's goal was never to bring things back in line, it was to keep the lights on and keep the money flowing to the donors. Some of whom run private detention centers.
No, we were talking about how the two parties are exactly the same. If they are exactly the same, Trump would have the same reason for picking justice Jackson as Biden. So what is that reason?
I understand that's your straw man. But that's not what the other people in this thread are saying.
That is not my straw man, that is exactly the order of the conversation. I was told both parties are the same, I asked if that was true, what Trump's reason for picking Jackson would be.
No one has come up with an answer.
But one person has tried to argue with me in this thread that Harriet Miers was a feminist and sent me to some Christian website to prove it, so that was amusing.
You know we can just read the thread right?
Can you?
The ratchet effect isn't the same thing as saying they're the same. It's saying the Democrats have no interest and have taken no action in rolling back Republican abuses.
How do you think we got here exactly?
Reagan
And who did nothing to fix it since exactly?
An election nearly four years ago? What a strange question.
Now, please explain to me how Judge Jackson would be the same sort of justice Trump would have nominated to SCOTUS.
How come SCOTUS is so fucked exactly? Who could have done something to fix it in the forty plus years we've known this was an issue an didn't?
That is not an explanation.