As is Trump.

So you say, "give me someone else who is worthy and they will get my vote."  Back to my original question- is there no one else?  Can you not see anyone else that you would vote for?  Is it Trump or no-one for you?  

Okay, simple question: Trump or DeSantis?  Which one would you prefer?

I didn't vote for Trump and DeSantis has the chance to win my vote. Your party made Trump your party's candidate. The question you should ask yourself is why you don't have anyone else with his national agenda and willingness to fight the left. The answer is because your Party is the Kennedy Democrats and have only a veneer of actual Conservatism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Stop putting this on Trump supporters. The corruption in DC that continues is a direct result of you and people like you who will not hold the government accountable.

Admit that our government has been corrupted by elite interests, and that most of the candidates put before us care more about their interests than making American lives better. Admit that our media is complicit in this, lie constantly and shamelessly, and are uncredible and unworthy of our attention. Acknowledge that the election deserved to be investigated and the anomalies mentioned above deserved to be discussed on the national stage and demand that you will maintain this standard moving forward, even if you personally don't think anything happened. Acknowledge that January 6th was overblown and is being exploited for political gain. Vow not to support any candidate that contributes to the corruption of our system. You do that, and people won't need to vote for Trump again. How about you do your part?

I agree, there is a ton of corruption in DC, and the right wing supreme court is the main reason for it. When someone tries to tell me that the solution to corruption caused by right wing judicial activism is to push further to the right I can't take them seriously, because it's laughably wrong.

Define right wing judicial activism.

---

I agree, there is a ton of corruption in DC, and the right wing supreme court is the main reason for it. When someone tries to tell me that the solution to corruption caused by right wing judicial activism is to push further to the right I can't take them seriously, because it's laughably wrong.

Define right wing judicial activism.

Following the law and the Constitution.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I agree, there is a ton of corruption in DC, and the right wing supreme court is the main reason for it. When someone tries to tell me that the solution to corruption caused by right wing judicial activism is to push further to the right I can't take them seriously, because it's laughably wrong.

Define right wing judicial activism.

If the recent Roe and EPA decisions didn't set off warning sirens in your head then I don't think you'd accept anything as judicial activism. Still, I think our current corruption is a result of unlimited money in politics, and the citizens united decision was especially egregious with regard to money in politics.

---

Define right wing judicial activism.

If the recent Roe and EPA decisions didn't set off warning sirens in your head then I don't think you'd accept anything as judicial activism. Still, I think our current corruption is a result of unlimited money in politics, and the citizens united decision was especially egregious with regard to money in politics.

Both decisions were correct.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Judicial activism is striking down any law that was duly enacted by the other two branches, or overturning any conviction from a lower court.
Sometimes it's called for, sometimes it's not.
Roe v Wade and all other abortion cases up to Dobbs are judicial activism. Dobbs is judicial passivism, and it was called for.
Alito's ruling in Rucho v Common Cause was also a passive decision, but, not called for. The facts and law were pretty clearly on Common Cause's side, and the court majority literally pretended not to understand basic addition to arrive at their conclusion. Nonetheless, a passive court is not necessarily a bad thing because there are other ways for the people to check bad actors besides federal court cases, as Alito pointed out at the end of that decision.
However, Alito has telegraphed that he intends to write a very activist decision in Moore v Harper, and that he intends to contradict what he signed on to for Rucho as he does it. He intends to close off all remedies against a runaway state legislature, other than voting out the members in their gerrymandered districts which of course will never happen.
So yes, there is a very serious right wing judicial activist threat to the republic, at the moment. Certain Republicans are trying to make themselves totally unaccountable to the people.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Such is the state of politics today. Views opposing your own are not just views opposing your own, they're extreme and activist and dangerous.

---

If the recent Roe and EPA decisions didn't set off warning sirens in your head then I don't think you'd accept anything as judicial activism. Still, I think our current corruption is a result of unlimited money in politics, and the citizens united decision was especially egregious with regard to money in politics.

Both decisions were correct.

That you would suggest that is why I so often don't bother to participate in discussion in this forum.

---

Both decisions were correct.

That you would suggest that is why I so often don't bother to participate in discussion in this forum.

You’re not participating now.  Why do you think they were the wrong decisions?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Both decisions were correct.

That you would suggest that is why I so often don't bother to participate in discussion in this forum.

What is incorrect about the decisions?

Where exactly in The Constitution is abortion a protected "right"?  The ruling puts that power back to the states and the people.

Where exactly in The Constitution is power given to an un-elected entity in the federal government to make rules/law?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That you would suggest that is why I so often don't bother to participate in discussion in this forum.

What is incorrect about the decisions?

Where exactly in The Constitution is abortion a protected "right"?  The ruling puts that power back to the states and the people.

Where exactly in The Constitution is power given to an un-elected entity in the federal government to make rules/law?

In the case of Roe the court took on a question not before them, that's activism.

Privacy is an implicit right in the constitution, without it multiple other rights can't exist, so to suddenly decide to find that women don't have a right to privacy in their medical decisions is activism.

The EPA case was a specious and nonsensical finding, essentially deciding that there are arbitrary limits to the government's ability to do its legislatively decided job.

---

All politicians lie. The difference is exactly what you said. Everyone and their dead grandmother knew he was dishonest but they also knew his policies were helping this country and it's people as a whole as compared to all the 'special interest groups' our current president caters to while weakening the country on both foreign and domestic sides.

I don't like Trump but he is a WYSIWYG kind of person. He couldn't hide who he is if he tried. I'd rather have a transparently dishonest POTUS with strong pro American policies than one who smiles to my face and says all the 'right' things then turns around and stabs me and this country in the back. 

If he runs again it's going to be chaos that I'm not looking forward to.

I think we all agree on that, except, Trump was not that person.

Which part was I wrong about? His dishonesty or his policies? Those are the choices. Don't go off on a January 6 tangent because he wasn't POTUS at that point.

---

I think we all agree on that, except, Trump was not that person.

Which part was I wrong about? His dishonesty or his policies? Those are the choices. Don't go off on a January 6 tangent because he wasn't POTUS at that point.

Donald Trump was the President of the United States on January 6, 2021.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Trump didn't really have any policies except the tax cut and moving a US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem. He enacted some tariffs which were not very high and easily circumvented by shipping product through unsanctioned countries like the Philippines.
Look at the homework assignments that Congress has:
Updating the Voting Rights Act (did you know there are no federal standards for mail in voting? Seems important!)
Updating the Federal communications Act (remember section 230?)
Updating the Environmental protection act
Updating immigration policy (where's the wall?)

He just couldn't get it done, even with his majorities. And instead of being smart, and having a coherent plan to get more members of Congress who agreed with a certain policy he actually wanted to implement, he simply endorsed whicher candidate was most obsequious to him, and he never explained to anyone how he wanted any of these things done, so even all these people he got elected with bootlicking loyalty pledges didn't know what they were supposed to do. And he obviously didn’t get enough of them, because Pelosi became Speaker in 2019. And he had absolutely no understanding of how primary elections were more likely to work against his goals as for them, and how they also need to be updated.

Trump was a very ineffective President. The one nice thing I'll say is Biden is shaping up to be equally ineffective.

Neither man seems to understand the times.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yes. Biden is as ineffective as Trump... they are just two peas in a pod. You're delusional.

---

Yes. Biden is as ineffective as Trump... they are just two peas in a pod. You're delusional.

You think Biden’s significantly more or less effective? What do you mean by effective?  I listed the things I thought a President should be doing, so, any President not doing them is ineffective in my book.  What do you think a President's job is or should be these days?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What is incorrect about the decisions?

Where exactly in The Constitution is abortion a protected "right"?  The ruling puts that power back to the states and the people.

Where exactly in The Constitution is power given to an un-elected entity in the federal government to make rules/law?

In the case of Roe the court took on a question not before them, that's activism.

Privacy is an implicit right in the constitution, without it multiple other rights can't exist, so to suddenly decide to find that women don't have a right to privacy in their medical decisions is activism.

The EPA case was a specious and nonsensical finding, essentially deciding that there are arbitrary limits to the government's ability to do its legislatively decided job.

Roe v Wade, even Ruth Bader Ginsburgh agreed the ruling was incorrect. What the the current court did was put it back to each state to decide OR make congress do it’s job and pass a law that makes abortion the law of the land.  Your ire should be directed at the cowards in your party that refuse to bring this up when they have all3 branches of power.

The EPA ruling is much the same.  Unelected officials cannot make laws.  It is the responsibility of the House and Congress to make laws.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Yes. Biden is as ineffective as Trump... they are just two peas in a pod. You're delusional.

You think Biden’s significantly more or less effective? What do you mean by effective?  I listed the things I thought a President should be doing, so, any President not doing them is ineffective in my book.  What do you think a President's job is or should be these days?

I think Trump was more effective than Biden because Trump was a Republican, and, in general, Republican policies are more effective than Democrat policies.  But I think almost any other Republican would have been more effective than Trump.  

But if anyone cannot see by now why Trump should never be President, there's no amount of persuading that will work, so I'll leave it at that.

---

In the case of Roe the court took on a question not before them, that's activism.

Privacy is an implicit right in the constitution, without it multiple other rights can't exist, so to suddenly decide to find that women don't have a right to privacy in their medical decisions is activism.

The EPA case was a specious and nonsensical finding, essentially deciding that there are arbitrary limits to the government's ability to do its legislatively decided job.

Roe v Wade, even Ruth Bader Ginsburgh agreed the ruling was incorrect. What the the current court did was put it back to each state to decide OR make congress do it’s job and pass a law that makes abortion the law of the land.  Your ire should be directed at the cowards in your party that refuse to bring this up when they have all3 branches of power.

The EPA ruling is much the same.  Unelected officials cannot make laws.  It is the responsibility of the House and Congress to make laws.

Okay.

---

Trump didn't really have any policies except the tax cut and moving a US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem.  He enacted some tariffs which were not very high and easily circumvented by shipping product through unsanctioned countries like the Philippines. 
Look at the homework assignments that Congress has:
Updating the Voting Rights Act (did you know there are no federal standards for mail in voting? Seems important!)
Updating the Federal communications Act (remember section 230?)
Updating the Environmental protection act
Updating immigration policy (where's the wall?)

He just couldn't get it done, even with his majorities.  And instead of being smart, and having a coherent plan to get more members of Congress who agreed with a certain policy he actually wanted to implement, he simply endorsed whicher candidate was most obsequious to him, and he never explained to anyone how he wanted any of these things done, so even all these people he got elected with bootlicking loyalty pledges didn't know what they were supposed to do. And he obviously didn’t get enough of them, because Pelosi became Speaker in 2019.  And he had absolutely no understanding of how primary elections were more likely to work against his goals as for them, and how they also need to be updated. 

Trump was a very ineffective President.  The one nice thing I'll say is Biden is shaping up to be equally ineffective. 

Neither man seems to understand the times.

Construction of the wall (apparently one of Trump's forgotten accomplishments) was halted by Biden in his first week in office.  Biden is worse than ineffective, he's destructive.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.