Because Biden

[DKTanker]

6 hours ago, rmgill said:

And the ‘principled’ D’s on this board have no real problem with it. 

 

As I said previously, the Leftist Party drinks kool aid from the Pitcher of Ideology.  Whatever advances the ideology is good.  Meanwhile on the right, whatever advances the Orange kool aid Pitcher of Trump is good.

[Skywalkre]

On 7/26/2024 at 1:25 PM, rmgill said:

You blamed the inflation on Trump and denied it was Biden's fault. PCCalahan noted that it was started with Trump response to COVID and continued and magnified by Biden.

Nope.

Here are some posts I found of mine going back weeks talking about inflation.  Here's the first:

Quote

But... to imply and believe that inflation is all Biden's fault is comical.  I haven't seen or heard any serious economist or reports from the Fed claim as much.  There's a lot of blame to go around, and both Biden and Trump deserve some of it, but not all of it.

Next one:

Quote

Biden didn't do anything to bring the economy back, that happened naturally as things opened up again (just as it's silly for Trump to blame Biden for inflation when actions Trump made are partly responsible for that happening as outlined in the graphs above).

There was this one where I made a mistake and forgot a word, but I clarified it here:

Quote

He bears some responsibility, but not all of it.  Your graph from several pages back actually showed the big jump in M1 happened under Trump, not Biden.  That other poster's blog he was highlighting also didn't show what he was hoping it would, laying some of the blame on Trump as well.  The reality is there are a lot of factors at play here.  Biden, Trump, US economic policy for years, the list goes on... all bear responsibility for where we're at.  Biden is suffering because the bad effects are coming due on his watch.

Note you were engaging with all those posts.  The point being I've been consistent in highlighting inflation (and the economic situation in general) is the fault of a lot of factors.  Which is how PCallahan ended his post.  You take issue when I say it but not him.  Almost as if... you're not actually reading what's on the screen.  🙄

[rmgill]

22 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Nope.

Here are some posts I found of mine going back weeks talking about inflation.  Here's the first:

Next one:

There was this one where I made a mistake and forgot a word, but I clarified it here:

Fair enough. I expect we'll see more generous points from you about Trump then? And you'll make clear note when the DNC makes or effects constitutional violations? Or legislative process violations? 

However, I'll note that under our legal system the Spending Bills originate in the House. Who has controlled the house at what time? 

I'll also ask, which members of the DNC advocate for reduced spending and controlled/balanced budgets? 


 

22 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Note you were engaging with all those posts.  The point being I've been consistent in highlighting inflation (and the economic situation in general) is the fault of a lot of factors.  Which is how PCallahan ended his post.  You take issue when I say it but not him.  Almost as if... you're not actually reading what's on the screen.  🙄

 Taken on face with ALL of your other points in defense of Biden and ridicule of Trump seem to lean to just muddying the waters or painting false equivalence. 

Edited July 29 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Biden's new policy and diktat for the Supreme Court...

 

Biden's proposal, outlined in a Monday op-ed in the Washington Post, includes three main changes to the court, which he describes as "mired in a crisis of ethics." These changes include term limits for justices, a binding code of conduct, and a significant amendment aimed at ensuring that no president is above the law. The president's plan appears to be a direct response to the court's recent 6-3 decision granting broad immunity to presidents for crimes committed while in office.

"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one," Biden wrote. He criticized the Supreme Court's decision, arguing it leaves virtually no limits on presidential actions except those self-imposed by the president.

Expressing clear concern over Trump potentially returning to office, Biden wrote, "If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power--like we saw on Jan. 6th, 2021--there may be no legal consequences."

In addition to what he calls the "No One Is Above The Law Amendment," Biden proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, suggesting that each president should appoint a new justice every two years, with justices serving 18 years in active service.

Biden also called for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, criticizing the current voluntary ethics code as "weak and self-enforced." He stated that justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from political activities, and recuse themselves from cases where they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. He argued that every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and the Supreme Court should not be exempt.

 

Mind you, the Surpeme Court as an office is NOT created by the Office of the President NOR of the US Congress, so neither has the power to re-structure the Court other than what is specifically given in the US constitution such as for appointments. 

This proposal by Biden represents a power grab from the 3rd portion of the US Government. Yet again, they must violate basic rules of the republic established over 200 years ago to 'save their democracy'. 

[sunday]

That on top of degrees of cynicism and hypocrisy rarely seen, also.

[Skywalkre]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Fair enough. I expect we'll see more generous points from you about Trump then? And you'll make clear note when the DNC makes or effects constitutional violations? Or legislative process violations? 

Plenty of other folks touch on those subjects when they happen.  As I've mentioned countless times on here, I post to push back against the ridiculousness some of you push.  It's about having an honest discussion and bringing things back to reality, something many of you have been detached from for some time.

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Taken on face with ALL of your other points in defense of Biden and ridicule of Trump seem to lean to just muddying the waters or painting false equivalence. 

Considering you just acknowledged you weren't reading what was right in front of you, with what you were engaging with, can you really say you're seeing things as they actually are?  🙄

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Biden's new policy and diktat for the Supreme Court...

 

Biden's proposal, outlined in a Monday op-ed in the Washington Post, includes three main changes to the court, which he describes as "mired in a crisis of ethics." These changes include term limits for justices, a binding code of conduct, and a significant amendment aimed at ensuring that no president is above the law. The president's plan appears to be a direct response to the court's recent 6-3 decision granting broad immunity to presidents for crimes committed while in office.

"This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one," Biden wrote. He criticized the Supreme Court's decision, arguing it leaves virtually no limits on presidential actions except those self-imposed by the president.

Expressing clear concern over Trump potentially returning to office, Biden wrote, "If a future president incites a violent mob to storm the Capitol and stop the peaceful transfer of power--like we saw on Jan. 6th, 2021--there may be no legal consequences."

In addition to what he calls the "No One Is Above The Law Amendment," Biden proposed term limits for Supreme Court justices, suggesting that each president should appoint a new justice every two years, with justices serving 18 years in active service.

Biden also called for a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court, criticizing the current voluntary ethics code as "weak and self-enforced." He stated that justices should be required to disclose gifts, refrain from political activities, and recuse themselves from cases where they or their spouses have financial or other conflicts of interest. He argued that every other federal judge is bound by an enforceable code of conduct, and the Supreme Court should not be exempt.

 

Mind you, the Surpeme Court as an office is NOT created by the Office of the President NOR of the US Congress, so neither has the power to re-structure the Court other than what is specifically given in the US constitution such as for appointments. 

This proposal by Biden represents a power grab from the 3rd portion of the US Government. Yet again, they must violate basic rules of the republic established over 200 years ago to 'save their democracy'. 

Oh FFS... he wrote an op-ed talking about what he would like to see, not stating what he's going to try and force through via Executive power.  He's allowed to express his views on matters.  As a lame-duck POTUS all he can do is try to control the narrative and that's what he's attempting to do here.  This piece in no way, shape, or form is an overreach of his power... because he's not using any.

Seriously... go outside and touch some grass. 

[rmgill]

12 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Oh FFS... he wrote an op-ed talking about what he would like to see, not stating what he's going to try and force through via Executive power. 

Settle Down Francis. Sure, it wasn't a throw away comment by Trump saying he thinks maybe cops should have more immunity. 

Seriously, you lot get hot and bothered about Trump tweeting things or making off handed remarks in a speech or some side conversation. 

Biden postulated his reform the Supreme Court thing in the national address just last week, so it's not just an op ed. It's a policy prescription that he specifically said he'd expand upon. There we have it in the op ed. He's floating an idea. 

12 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

He's allowed to express his views on matters.  As a lame-duck POTUS all he can do is try to control the narrative and that's what he's attempting to do here. 

And I bet you $20 that Kamala will take up the same policy because the Supreme Court is a major obstacle to their policy prescriptions. 
 

12 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

This piece in no way, shape, or form is an overreach of his power... because he's not using any.

Seriously... go outside and touch some grass. 

Please use that same 'moderation' the next time you're upset about mean tweets or Trump's off handed comments. 

Edited July 29 by rmgill

[rmgill]

15 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

ering you just acknowledged you weren't reading what was right in front of you, with what you were engaging with, can you really say you're seeing things as they actually are?  🙄

I think you demand far more grace than you ever seem to give. 

[17thfabn]

13 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Oh FFS... he wrote an op-ed talking about what he would like to see, not stating what he's going to try and force through via Executive power.  He's allowed to express his views on matters.  As a lame-duck POTUS all he can do is try to control the narrative and that's what he's attempting to do here.  This piece in no way, shape, or form is an overreach of his power... because he's not using any.

Seriously... go outside and touch some grass. 

Obviously the only way for Biden's supreme court proposals to go through is a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.

[Skywalkre]

6 minutes ago, rmgill said:

And I bet you $20 that Kamala will take up the same policy because the Supreme Court is a major obstacle to their policy prescriptions.

Probably, and you know what... they're allowed to think this way.  Despite your claims of a power grab and going against the rules of our country, Constitutional Amendments are actually allowed.  In fact we've done them lots of times in our history!  The bit about an ethics code is in question because I'm pretty sure Congress passed the code that all other Fed judges follow (I could be wrong, been a while since I heard discussion on this).

The safe bet is if Ds are serious about this they'll likely have to push all three through Constitutional Amendments.  As 17thfabn already said - good luck with that.

[rmgill]

8 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Probably, and you know what... they're allowed to think this way.  Despite your claims of a power grab and going against the rules of our country, Constitutional Amendments are actually allowed. 

Well, then 95% of your complaints about Trump are null and void. 

He made proposals and his staff shot them down as unworkable. Biden made proposals and then went on to try to execute them only to be blocked in some cases in court. So those WERE power grabs vs talking about power grams. 

So, like I said, Settle Down Francis. 

8 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

In fact we've done them lots of times in our history!  The bit about an ethics code is in question because I'm pretty sure Congress passed the code that all other Fed judges follow (I could be wrong, been a while since I heard discussion on this).

Yes. But Congress doesn't have that authority over SCOTUS. They have authority over the lesser courts. But NOT the supreme court. The president appoints them with the advice and consent of the Senate. But after that, they're independent. For good reasons too. 

Note, 
Article II Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power....
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

And Article III 

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. 

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

8 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The safe bet is if Ds are serious about this they'll likely have to push all three through Constitutional Amendments.  As 17thfabn already said - good luck with that.

They should. But I can see them trying something else and acting as if it's fine. 

[Skywalkre]

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

They should. But I can see them trying something else and acting as if it's fine. 

Here's a crazy thought - condemn them when they actually do something wrong instead of for the idea they might.

[rmgill]

12 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Here's a crazy thought - condemn them when they actually do something wrong instead of for the idea they might.

As I noted about Trump. 

What policies did he actually implement that you disliked? 

For example,  your bitching about Project 2025. Superfluous by your own standards. 

Condemn him when he actually does something wrong instead of the idea he might. Like just the other day when you posted this:
"And speaking of this, I can't wait to see you bend over backwards to defend Trump's statements about police.  At a rally up in MN he said police should be 'federally immune' (whatever that means).  He said something similar over a month ago in WI stating he feels police should get immunity from prosecution."

This is exhibit A for why I don't think you honestly judge Trump and why I read certain tone into your "fair" critiques of Biden alongside Trump. Because Trump's statements are AWFUL Terrible THINGS.  Biden just says stuff, he doesn't ever try to carry them out, even when he has a senate record over 40 years to go on. 

I think we covered that before. Biden's senate record counts 10 times more against him than Trump's random comments do. 
 

Edited July 29 by rmgill

[Skywalkre]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

As I noted about Trump. 

What policies did he actually implement that you disliked? 

For example,  your bitching about Project 2025. Superfluous by your own standards. 

Condemn him when he actually does something wrong

Umm... the events leading up to and including 6Jan.

3 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Condemn him when he actually does something wrong instead of the idea he might. Like just the other day when you posted this:
"And speaking of this, I can't wait to see you bend over backwards to defend Trump's statements about police.  At a rally up in MN he said police should be 'federally immune' (whatever that means).  He said something similar over a month ago in WI stating he feels police should get immunity from prosecution."
 

We can also disagree with proposed ideas that are just idiotic.  That's not what you were doing with Biden.  You weren't saying "this is a bad idea" but instead pushed the notion it was some "power grab" and that Ds  "must violate basic rules of the republic established over 200 years ago to 'save their democracy'."  Neither of those statements by you are accurate descriptors of what happened.

As for Trump's comments, here they are.  Start around 52:00 on the first one and 1:16:30 on the second.

 

[rmgill]

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Umm... the events leading up to and including 6Jan.

Non sequitur. Project 2025 has nothing to do with J6. 
 

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

We can also disagree with proposed ideas that are just idiotic. 
 

So with Biden, you change the standard. Thats makes my overall point. 

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

That's not what you were doing with Biden.  You weren't saying "this is a bad idea" but instead pushed the notion it was some "power grab" and that Ds  "must violate basic rules of the republic established over 200 years ago to 'save their democracy'."

Well it is. Anything short of a constitutional amendment would be illegal. But even with that it would be a power grab because it would conform the Supreme court to the sitting president after 2 terms. 
 

Biden doesn’t have a habit of going according to legal forms either. Be it gun control, immigration, vaccination or a host of other federal actions by the white house. 
 

He just doesn’t like the current makeup and the fact the senate won’t approve his appointments. So he can’t try to stack the court ala FDR. 

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

 As for Trump's comments, here they are.  Start around 52:00 on the first one and 1:16:30 on the second.

Are they acted upon policies? If not, by your own standard they are out. You literally just made up this standard and now you’re weaseling out in it. 

We can talk about J6. But then we also need to talk about Robert Bork and Ukraine’s prosecutor, and all of Biden’s wrong headed senate votes like gun control and other policies. 

[Skywalkre]

51 minutes ago, rmgill said:

So with Biden, you change the standard. Thats makes my overall point.

You were lying about what Biden was doing.  That's not the same.

51 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Are they acted upon policies? If not, by your own standard they are out.

A strawman you just came up with.

Look, you were lying about Biden's op-ed in your post about it and you were lying about what I was saying before that.  You at least owned up (kind of) when I pointed it out about me.  The decent thing would be to do the same about what you were saying about Biden here.

[rmgill]

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

You were lying about what Biden was doing.  That's not the same.

What was my Lie?

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

A strawman you just came up with.

You must have stuttered. 
 

Here’s the standard. 
 

‘Oh FFS... he wrote an op-ed talking about what he would like to see, not stating what he's going to try and force through via Executive power.  He's allowed to express his views on matters.  As a lame-duck POTUS all he can do is try to control the narrative and that's what he's attempting to do here.  This piece in no way, shape, or form is an overreach of his power... because he's not using any.’

I understand it as if it does’t actually associate with an actual law or policy its just talk. Ignore it. 
 

So, about that federal censorship that MUSK unveiled ? 

 

What of that? 

3 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Look, you were lying about Biden's op-ed in your post about it and you were lying about what I was saying before that.  You at least owned up (kind of) when I pointed it out about me.  The decent thing would be to do the same about what you were saying about Biden here.

Biden does’t have limits. He literally notes a given action is unconstitutional and then does it anyhow. See also student loan forgiveness. 

[Rick]

12 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Oh FFS... he wrote an op-ed talking about what he would like to see, not stating what he's going to try and force through via Executive power.  He's allowed to express his views on matters.  As a lame-duck POTUS all he can do is try to control the narrative and that's what he's attempting to do here.  This piece in no way, shape, or form is an overreach of his power... because he's not using any.

Seriously... go outside and touch some grass. 

Like this op-ed? After she lost.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-electoral-collegecnntv/index.html#:~:text=“I believe strongly that in,told reporters at the time. 
"“I think it needs to be eliminated,” Clinton said of the Electoral College. “I’d like to see us move beyond it, yes.”

Prior to Clinton, we had F.D.R. 's 1937 attempt at "court packing." The Democratic Party is truly evil because of the hellish lust of liberal beliefs. 

Edited July 30 by Rick

[Josh]

14 hours ago, rmgill said:

Settle Down Francis. Sure, it wasn't a throw away comment by Trump saying he thinks maybe cops should have more immunity. 

Seriously, you lot get hot and bothered about Trump tweeting things or making off handed remarks in a speech or some side conversation. 

Biden postulated his reform the Supreme Court thing in the national address just last week, so it's not just an op ed. It's a policy prescription that he specifically said he'd expand upon. There we have it in the op ed. He's floating an idea. 

And I bet you $20 that Kamala will take up the same policy because the Supreme Court is a major obstacle to their policy prescriptions. 
 

Please use that same 'moderation' the next time you're upset about mean tweets or Trump's off handed comments. 

Trump stating aspects of the constitution should be suspended and indicating voting will not be necessary post 2024: ok.

Biden indicating in an op ed he would prefer term limits and some kind of actual ethics in the SCOTUS: MASSIVE OVERREACH !!!

[Josh]

14 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Probably, and you know what... they're allowed to think this way.  Despite your claims of a power grab and going against the rules of our country, Constitutional Amendments are actually allowed.  In fact we've done them lots of times in our history!  The bit about an ethics code is in question because I'm pretty sure Congress passed the code that all other Fed judges follow (I could be wrong, been a while since I heard discussion on this).

The safe bet is if Ds are serious about this they'll likely have to push all three through Constitutional Amendments.  As 17thfabn already said - good luck with that.

The alternative for the Ds might be to allow the SCOTUS to set its own enforcement of ethics and term limits more informally, or else simply pack the court until it does not  matter. That would of course take full control of government AND removal of the filibuster, but that’s what it would take for most any non bipartisan action outside reconciliation. And such an action is precedents and within the constitution. It is a less desirable outcome but far more achievable.

Edited July 30 by Josh

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Trump stating aspects of the constitution should be suspended and indicating voting will not be necessary post 2024: ok.

Biden indicating in an op ed he would prefer term limits and some kind of actual ethics in the SCOTUS: MASSIVE OVERREACH !!!

This was also in a national address. So not some off the cuff adlib. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

The alternative for the Ds might be to allow the SCOTUS to set its own enforcement of ethics and term limits more informally, or else simply pack the court until it does not  matter. That would of course take full control of government AND removal of the filibuster, but that’s what it would take for most any non bipartisan action outside reconciliation. And such an action is precedents and within the constitution. It is a less desirable outcome but far more achievable.

You know the senate and house set their own rules right? You know why that might be right? 
 

You also realize the senate and house lobbying groups have had a deleterious effect on any credibility of the Congressmen in office for decades to even complain about this with SCOTUS.
 

And the house and Senate have had no rules against insider trading on the stock market  

This is like a morbidly obese alcoholic telling someone with a smaller weight issue how they should diet while stuffing their face with twinkies. 
 

This is a stated desire for a power grab, not a very good one but none the less. The DNC is upset that they can’t have more federal power because the supreme court blocked them.

 

Its much the samE as the censorship the DNC has been pushing through the alphabet agencies and the state department. 

Edited July 30 by rmgill

[Josh]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

You know the senate and house set their own rules right? You know why that might be right? 
 

You also realize the senate and house lobbying groups have had a deleterious effect on any credibility of the Congressmen in office for decades to even complain about this with SCOTUS.
 

And the house and Senate have had no rules against insider trading on the stock market  

This is like a morbidly obese alcoholic telling someone with a smaller weight issue how they should diet while stuffing their face with twinkies. 
 

This is a stated desire for a power grab, not a very good one but none the less. The DNC is upset that they can’t have more federal power because the supreme court blocked them.

 

Its much the samE as the censorship the DNC has been pushing through the alphabet agencies and the state department. 

I was not applying any morality or ethics to the situation; I was merely pointing out that there is a nuclear option that could provide leverage. But even then, that leverage would only exist for as long as complete control did. And actually packing the court assumes that the other side never has full control such that they simply pack it further.

I think term limits and enforcement of ethics make perfect sense as constitutional amendments, but obviously that does not happen in our lifetimes.

Edited July 30 by Josh

[rmgill]

How about Term Limits on congressmen first? Because the Federalist papers specifically noted that Lifetime Terms for SCOTUS appointments was a way to ensure the election independence of the judiciary. 
 

Otherwise, you have people influencing  the court by making promises for fat jobs afterwards or blacklisting threats for unfavorable decisions. You know, like how government regulators are currently affected in big industry sectors. General Aviation can’t make big promises to FAA administrators like the Airlines Or Boeing can. 
 

The founding fathers thought this system out very well. You go mucking about with it at our mutual peril. The Popular election of senators turned them into representatives of big business. See also Biden’s ENTIRE senate career. Which makes this all the more ironic and obtuse. Here’s a hint, Biden was in the senate for 36 years. 
 

 

Edited July 30 by rmgill