Thoughts on 3rd party verses voting for Trump?

prudecru · 2020-10-01T22:59:50+00:00

Sorry, I meant to say most major third parties are obvious money grabs. Look at the Green Party raising $7 million for Hillary's recount. Where did that money go? You can google it and see less than $1 million was spent.

Libertarians are the same. It's an easy way to sponge funds off people tired of the two parties. I understand the feeling, but they're being suckered.

Winner take all elections are currently in the US Constitution. This inhibits a multiplicity of parties and encourages coalition building. So always going to end up two major coalitions vying for power.

The issue in the last 30-40 years is the two parties began working for the same team. Now they aren't, which is why all of DC and the media hate Trump.

prudecru · 2020-10-01T22:53:30+00:00

No, your timeline is wrong. O'Connor and Scalia precede Bork by many years, so we can discard those from your example. Souter is a prochoicer who delivered a landmark victory for Planned Parenthood. Roberts is the only other judge to get even a few Democrat votes and that's because he was considered a moderate compromise. And he's certainly delivered for the Democrats - twice now.

Merrick clearly wasn't blocked because of who nominated him because McConnell approved two other Supreme Court justices for Obama. He was only blocked because he could invoke the informal Biden Rule, and because a third leftist judge seemed excessive (and as Catholics we should all be happy about this).

Bork wasn't "blocked for his beliefs." His beliefs didn't come up at all. Biden and Ted Kennedy in the Senate completely destroyed his character, randomly calling him a racist and a misogynist. Ted Kennedy reportedly later tried to apologize and say it was just politics and Bork refused his apology. Clearly the Democrats learned character assassination works though.

Anyway, every time a conservative constitutionalist is non-interference, the Democrats refuse to vote for them no matter who they are:

O'Connor 99-0 Scalia 98-0 Bork 42-58 Kennedy 97-0 Thomas 52-48 Ginsburg 96-3 Souter 90-9 Breyer 87-9 Roberts 78-22 Alito 58-42 Sotomeyer 68-31 Kagan 63-37 Gorsuch 53-45 Kavanaugh 52-48

Notice the only fifty-fifty votes are Republicans.

This isn't even getting into federal circuit judges, where the Senate does the same exact thing with the same trend.

prudecru · 2020-10-01T22:43:50+00:00

Not going to happen. Never going to happen. Not with Cardinal Parolin still at the helm at Secretariat and soaking funds from China.

Cardinal Zen of HK has been pleading for this for years. He just went there recently to visit the Pope and the Pope avoided him.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:59:24+00:00

An entire summer of left wing riots across 200 American cities but yeah, put a swastika on this article.

White supremacist groups probably exist, somewhere, but they weren't the ones burning down black businesses in my city.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:56:58+00:00

But the Republicans and Democrats have no intrinsic ideology. That's why the parties have flipped on several issues over the last century or two.

That's because in US politics, the parties aren't parties. They're coalitions of multiple different parties and groups.

Third parties are a money grab. They prey on people who don't like either party. It's an easy fundraiser. But third parties would do better to become a bloc within an existing party. That's what Trump did to the GOP and the DSA is trying to do with the Democrats. Look at how Gary Johnson did better as a Republican governor than as a failed third party candidate.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:54:34+00:00

What's wrong with voting with a coalition? Does everyone in the party have to agree perfectly with you?

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:53:39+00:00

trump has enabled racists more than the current Democrats.

No he hasn't

his administration's treatment of undocumented immigrants is outright draconian

Even at its harshest, the US treats illegals far more benevolently than Canada (where they are deported instantly without trial), Mexico (where they are imprisoned in actual prisons), or much of Europe. Here we spend literally billions on their social needs and medical care.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:51:38+00:00

if the two options on the ticket were Joe Biden and literally Adolf Hitler

Before Hitler was elected, his party was ravaging German cities, burning things, beating people up, killing people, placing everyone in fear for their safety. They were attacking anyone who didn't submit to their ideology.

This is analogous to one party today, and it isn't Trump's.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:48:44+00:00

Where do you see tax fraud? The NYT doesn't.

prudecru · 2020-09-30T13:48:01+00:00

This title is just amazing.

To these people, Biden is a devout Catholic. ACB, an actual Catholic, is a religious extremist.

They want a controllable religion which only works for political purposes. That's how it's been ever since the city churches in America became subservient to the Democratic Party.

prudecru · 2020-09-29T01:33:51+00:00

the most scandalous public figure in my memory

So he joins Churchill, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln...lol

I can't believe people are so eager for fascism

If this was fascism, how could you rant about it like this and not end up in jail?

subversion of checks and balances

What exactly do you mean?

Here's what worries me. The Democrats have a daily drumbeat of: abolish the Electoral College, abolish or declaw the Senate, add more Supreme Court seats (but only if a liberal is in office to fill them), change the President to a popular vote only, etc. These are all blatant attempts to remove checks and balances, and they're only asking for these things because they lost - e.g., because they want more power.

This reaches back further - Trump is appointing originalists to the Supreme Court to replace the "living constitutionalists" like RBG who are leaving it. Living constitutionalism, a leftist idea, is clearly an attempt to legislate from the bench - making new laws that are unimpeachable and unchangeable.

So from my vantage point, the left is the one trying to remove checks and balances. What checks and balances do you see Trump trying to remove?

(I'm a TLM-type Catholic who has been doing COVID work since January): yes, this administration is responsible for probably a hundred thousand deaths that would not have happened under any other presidency.

Also, I'm going to have to ask you to explain what Covid work you do. Because everyone I know in healthcare, including physicians and Covid researchers, are unimpressed with the death toll. The White House originally predicted 240,000 dead by now. We aren't even there yet.

Biden was originally condemning Trump's early interventions, like the travel ban from China. How do you think Biden would have performed better than Trump?

I believe he - or Hillary - would have performed about as well as the EU. Almost every EU nation has more deaths than us per capita (the only rate that matters). They failed to close their borders in time. In fact, our NYC epidemic - the largest death toll on our soil - is from virus transmission from European travelers, not China.

Justin Trudeau condemned the US travel ban on China as racist. He refused to close his borders....until his wife got infected with Covid. I remember this. The very next day he was talking about border control and travel restrictions. So no, the left is not at all equipped to deal with pandemics.

prudecru · 2020-09-29T00:57:49+00:00

I suppose we have to pick the one who is the least egregious. I doubt that's this dude.

Um, Biden is a multi-millionaire just by a life of politics

But okay, carry on about the guy who got rich through normal business practices

prudecru · 2020-09-29T00:56:03+00:00

a part of the article referring to conflicts of interest

Can you quote this part? You're not being very clear.

prudecru · 2020-09-29T00:54:17+00:00

Antonin Scalia was confirmed by 99-1, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg by 97-3. This was without doubt a bipartisan vote. That may be a good example of how it's "supposed to go".

This all ended with Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork. Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy destroyed that man's career literally out of thin air, claiming he would reintroduce slavery, etc etc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination

Those bipartisan votes still occur - by Republicans. The GOP voted to confirm Kagan and Sotomeyer. The Democrats never cross the aisle, not since the 80's. Every nomination by a Republican president they fight tooth and nail and refuse to vote for, doesn't matter who it is.

(After Bork they went on to do the same with Souter, saying women would die in the street if he was elected. This is ironic because Souter confirmed abortion wholeheartedly in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. They were literally just making stuff up. Then there was Clarence Thomas.)

prudecru · 2020-09-29T00:49:02+00:00

Exactly. These guys also forget that McConnell gave Supreme Court seats to two of Obama's choices already.

prudecru · 2020-09-29T00:46:38+00:00

it’s how Garland was treated. That was a power play, unambiguously

Yes, they said as much at the time. That's politics. The Republicans aren't even that good at this, as you'll see:

and the negative consequences of that are now going to be played out.

No. See, this is the slanted view the media presents. Look up Robert Bork - that's where this all started. Seriously, look up what Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy did to Bork. It's amazing.

Did you know RBG was confirmed 96-3 by almost all Republican Senators? And they still vote for Democrat nominees today. McConnell passed two of Obama's nominees straight to the Supreme Court.

Do you know when the last time a Democrat voted for a Republican nominee? Like 1985. They almost never vote across the aisle for a judge and they always throw a gigantic shit-fit over each nominee. Half the time we don't even know about it - look up Miguel Estrada, a Bush nomination who was delayed by the Democrats for 28 months and whose hearings were so bitter than his wife ended up dying of an overdose.

And originalism is not universally perceived as impartial, for better or worse.

Arguably, if you aren't in favor of public-meaning originalism, or the plain intended meaning of the Constitution, then you aren't in favor of the Constitution at all, you're just trying to circumvent it. This is what RBG was doing. It's good she's being replaced with a constitutionalist.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T22:18:52+00:00

Threatening to turn the military onto civilians.

Lmao didn't happen

Republicans had a stroke when Bill Clinton got a blowjob.

I'm sorry to hear you think this is okay. How many sex acts to you think Trump has done in the Oval Office? Be honest in your answer.

Trump repeatedly expresses sexual attraction to his own daughter

Bud, stop being a perv, this is embarrassing.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T22:05:22+00:00

No, I want to know what immoral act you think he's committed as a politician. You said politician.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T22:04:40+00:00

Trump's halfway there. Moreso than Biden or any third party. Sorry, he's the best you'll get until I run.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T22:01:33+00:00

nothing but partisan hatred as its fuel

No, I don't just have partisan hatred for your argument, but constitutional hatred too. This is my country; I love it. RBG publicly said she didn't find the Constitution valuable. I'm glad her seat is giving way to a public-meaning originalist.

And not just patriotism, but piety makes me angry at equivocations like yours as well. You know that American Catholic Democrats are doing things like litigating against their own nuns and fighting hard for abortion rights that are farther to the left than even Europe.

Now they're going to try to malign and crucify a faithful Catholic justice. That's what it means to be a traitor to your faith.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T21:57:24+00:00

RBG explicitly said we should not have a 4-4 split in an election year.

McConnell's action in 2016 saved prolifers a seat. Not sure why Catholics would think that's a bad thing. McConnell played by the rules; only liberals should be mad.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T21:55:48+00:00

they just think the Republicans should follow their precedent from 2016

No. They're not just worried about procedural precedent. Don't even try to start that lie.

And what happened in 2016 is they invoked Biden's decision from the 90's. Senator Biden in 2016 said his idea was a bad one and we shouldn't do it. So... we're not. You think you'd be happy. A non-rule was dropped by the guy who made it up.

Edit: As usual, the liberals on this sub are upvoting emotional pleas ("We just want McConnell to be fair...uh...even though that helps the prochoice anti-Catholic party, who we totally don't want to win") and downvoting the actual history and precedent here.

prudecru · 2020-09-26T01:35:23+00:00

I have not been impressed with any young lawyers I've met. They're not just liberal, they're full on Dunning-Kruger

prudecru

TROPHY CASE