And as far as government intervention is concerned, you can call it a spectrum between libertarianism and __________________. Fill in the blank. You support expanding the Supreme Court despite the immediate institutional harm it will cause because you believe it's for the "greater good" or that "the ends justify the means." It's the same thing. And don't give me that crap. You and I both know the reason you support expanding the Supreme Court is because of the current power dynamic in the Supreme Court. Republicans did this to you, you feel cheated, so you want to expand it. Now, I'm doing the same thing as you and you're mocking me and attacking my character. There you go. Winner winner, chicken dinner. My point exactly. Republicans did this to you, so you want to expand the Supreme Court.
Well we have to draw the line somewhere. I would assume if one party just started murdering political opponents on a mass scale, we'd be at war. So no, I don't support gassing Dems under any circumstances.
You realize that a spectrum means that there are options in between, right? So you can not be a libertarian and also not be an authoritarian? I'm surprised you didn't realize that when you made your switch from libertarianism to authoritarianism. At this point, the institution is already well on its way to destroying itself. The best way to save it is to use expansion to leverage much-needed reforms. Republicans broke a government institution. I want to use democratic means to fix it. How is this comparable to DeSantis attacking a private company for its political speech?
My disdain for Soros is entirely political and has nothing to do with his faith or ethnicity. Looks like you're shooting for ad hominem bingo with me tonight. It seems to me that you think we have a right (perhaps even obligation) to criticize wealthy special interests buying off politicians unless the source of those special interests happens to be Jewish. No, they're not.
Yet, you're still using an antisemitic trope. If it hurts your feelings for me to point that out, so be it. As a Jew, I don't appreciate having to see that shit on the regular. Yep, they are.
It seems to me that you think we have a right (perhaps even obligation) to criticize wealthy special interests buying off politicians unless the source of those special interests happens to be Jewish.
Has DeSantis actually conceded that he is targeting Disney over the education bill? I have been assuming they’d lie about it out of concern of a First Amendment violation.
Yeah, implying that a wealthy Jew is pulling the strings on Trump's prosecution when he didn't even donate directly to the district attorney that's behind it is definitely something you have an "obligation" to do. You have a patriotic duty to spread antisemitic conspiracy theories.
I am aware, the problem is you are authoritarian and you support authoritarian tendency as long as they're in furtherance of "rights" as YOU define them. Even if these "rights" are at the direct expense of another's actual rights. Congratulations, you have cracked the code for the psychology of Trump and DeSantis supporters. No Democrats changed the rules, when the power dynamics changed it bit them in the ass, and now people like you are throwing a temper tantrum to change the rules again so the power dynamics work to their benefit... AGAIN. How is it comparable? Again, you know this will have short-term institutional harm (I would argue long-term, but whatever). You know it will damage the integrity of the Supreme Court as a whole. But you support it because you believe it will save it in the long run. I've already explained this to you.
Yeah, I don't give a crap if he indirectly gave him the money or directly gave him the money. He funded the DA who indicted Trump. That is plainly the truth. And if he was a Jewish person who gives money to the NRA and Marco Rubio, and folks here were suggesting that particular Jewish person and the gun lobby bought Marco Rubio, you wouldn't be giving them any crap. Maybe that's what the NRA should do... Just put a Jewish dude at the top, and suddenly they're immune from any conspiracy theories that they're buying out politicians.
Nah. I'm a big believer in liberal democracy, which is why I sue the government when it violates the Constitution. I believe in freedom and civil liberties. But I get why those things may not be popular with you anymore. LOL. You'll have to remind me when the Democrats refused to confirm a Republican President's SCOTUS nominee and left an unfilled vacancy until the next Democratic President could fill it. I'd love to find out when the Democrats made that rule change. In other words, there's no comparison between the two.
Well it's good to know you at least have a line, but it's too bad that authoritarian abuse of power isn't on the other side of it.
what % of the DA"s political contributions where indirectly provided by Soros? Does it matter if it is a deminimus amount?
What percentage of *insert pro gun politician's* contributions were provided by the NRA? Does it matter if it is a deminimus amount?
Except it's plainly not the truth. He gave money to a PAC that gave money to a number of candidates, including Bragg. But keep up the antisemitic conspiracy theories. It's a really great look. Yeah, I wouldn't suddenly like antisemitic conspiracy theories if my side did it. I understand that you think that principles only extend as far as tribalism, but some of us don't feel the same way. The NRA doesn't buy politicians. Hell, aren't they cash strapped at this point? What the NRA has is single-issue voters who will oppose politicians who buck them. Basically, they use democracy to get what they want. While I vehemently disagree with the NRA, I think they have every right to do that. And I disagree with Andrew Cuomo's administration targeting the NRA for its political speech (since we're on this topic).
And I've always said that I have no issue with the Republicans nuking the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees. Both sides were playing that game. That is far, far different from the Republicans refusing to consider Obama's judicial nominees and holding open a SCOTUS vacancy until they could regain the Presidency.
So as far as you're concerned, if Merrick Garland were on the Court, you wouldn't want to expand the Supreme Court?
