I cannot stand idly by any longer

[Coyote]

Biden condemned all violence at this event through his spokesman.
(Trump was silent.)

That's a lie on its face. Trump was not silent, he condemned the violence against his supporters.
Biden himself did not expressly condemn the violence. Like I told you. I want to hear it from his mouth. Not from a spokesman.

Woah. There is a problem here, and I think it is mismatched goal posts.

As far as I can find (and you have not presented) Trump did not explicit condemn his supporters violence or “all violence” at the DC rally.

You are essentially stating his prior (to this event) statement condemning all violence was sufficient. Ok. Fair enough.

Biden has also condemned all violence, several times, most notably in response to a question in the debates. But that is not sufficient.

You are demanding that Biden must explicitly condemn the violence on his side, at the DC rally.

Do you see the problem here?

The "both sides" argument is effective to a point-- until it becomes evident that you aren't willing to condemn any violence committed by people in the name of ideals and mindsets you support.

I summarily reject this premise.

Then you need to apply that rejection to Trump as well.

So my question to you is this:

What's wrong with that? Having it come from Biden himself would be more genuine and *GASP* more believable.

Sure it would be. But let’s keep apples with apples and oranges with oranges. In this context, Biden said something through his spokesman. Trump said nothing.

You stated Trump didn’t have to say anything about this event because he had previously condemned the violence.

You also said the same of Biden. Don't lecture me about behaviors you were engaging in yourself.

Umh...this is getting convoluted. In terms of timing, when you said Trump had previously condemned all violence (your new goal post), I THEN pointed out that Biden had done the same.

Now we are back to...but Trump doesn’t have to because all the violence was from the other side.
Except the police say differently.

Except we see no videos of Trump supporters instigating any of the violence. Trust me, I looked for them. I saw maybe one video where a Trump supporter was knocking someone to the ground. Deductive reasoning dictates we find out what instigated that behavior.

That is, unless the police have bodycam footage we don't know about.

You look at videos from the folks you follow on Twitter who more than likely share your point of view. You have no idea what the lead up was, or what occurred after the video bits and what Incidents they chose not to video.

I would rather go by what the police say. They were there, they handling it, and they made arrests.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

I never claimed to be. I can only try to be. Big difference. But sometimes fairness and objectivity get you nowhere.

 

[Coyote]

As far as 'packing the court' is concerned, how is that fundamentally different than what happened with Merrick Garland? Republicans used a technically constitutional tool to swing the court the way they wanted. It is a power the Senate possessed by the constitution.

Merrick Garland was not an attempt to pack the court. He was an attempt to fill a vacancy. The Senate acted well within its rights. Democrats when or if they take control of the Senate can just as easily engage in the same actions. I won't protest.

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Skylar]

So is changing the number of supreme court justices. If abuse of procedural power is egregious enough to overthrow the government......then republicans would have been at the top of your list since 2016.

That statement reeks of personal bias.

As does the OP. What's your point?

Notice you don't actually address the point. You merely ignore it. That doesn't speak of any degree of objectivity or impartiality. Merely your own personal biases.

Which is fine, of course. None of are blank canvases.

That is tu quoque. Try again.

Nonsense. Its a rejection of your very premise. That I have personal biases neither invalidates my perspective nor justifies your willful ignorance of my point. The point itself should be weighed and discussed on its merit. As I did your OP.

If a demonstration of any personal bias invalidates a point, then then your entire OP, dripping with with personal bias, should be rejected and ignored by your own standard.

Obviously, as our discussion demonstrates, I disagree. I reject your premise and believe your OP, dripping with personal bias, should be discussed on its merit.

However, if you believe that your personal bias justifies ignoring you, by all means, tell us now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So is changing the number of supreme court justices. If abuse of procedural power is egregious enough to overthrow the government......then republicans would have been at the top of your list since 2016.

That statement reeks of personal bias. While Congress may have the right to change the number of justices in the Supreme Court... the founders in Federalist 10 spoke of the tendencies of one faction trying to use the government to silence another. Packing the court with people who agree with only one side of the argument is not an attempt to improve the government or its functioning, it is a blatant act of seizing power within itself, ironically. I'd rather neither side do it.

As far as 'packing the court' is concerned, how is that fundamentally different than what happened with Merrick Garland? Republicans used a technically constitutional tool to swing the court the way they wanted. It is a power the Senate possessed by the constitution.

Merrick Garland was not an attempt to pack the court. He was an attempt to fill a vacancy. The Senate acted well within its rights. Democrats when or if they take control of the Senate can just as easily engage in the same actions. I won't protest.

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

Exactly. Thank you.

Oh. I see how it is. Now you are letting someone else speak for you. You're better than that.

 

[Coyote]

So is changing the number of supreme court justices. If abuse of procedural power is egregious enough to overthrow the government......then republicans would have been at the top of your list since 2016.

That statement reeks of personal bias. While Congress may have the right to change the number of justices in the Supreme Court... the founders in Federalist 10 spoke of the tendencies of one faction trying to use the government to silence another. Packing the court with people who agree with only one side of the argument is not an attempt to improve the government or its functioning, it is a blatant act of seizing power within itself, ironically. I'd rather neither side do it.

As far as 'packing the court' is concerned, how is that fundamentally different than what happened with Merrick Garland? Republicans used a technically constitutional tool to swing the court the way they wanted. It is a power the Senate possessed by the constitution.

Merrick Garland was not an attempt to pack the court. He was an attempt to fill a vacancy. The Senate acted well within its rights. Democrats when or if they take control of the Senate can just as easily engage in the same actions. I won't protest.

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

Exactly. Thank you.

Oh. I see how it is. Now you are letting someone else speak for you. You're better than that.

I happen to think he made an excellent point. What is wrong with agreeing with it? He is spot on.

It is all legal and constitutional.

So, just because you can, should you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a demonstration of any personal bias invalidates a point, then then your entire OP, dripping with personal bias, should be rejected and ignored by your own standard.

Demonstrating personal biases invalidates a point when someone is trying to set forth facts. I set forth evidence apart from my stated biases. The video evidence should speak for itself, regardless of the biases I hold.

 

[Skylar]

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

See my previous response.

Your previous response neither addresses this point, nor refutes it. Both are constitutional uses of the Senates power.

The issue doesn't appear to be the actions involved......but instead, the party involved. Any discussion of the issue on the basis of process are thus invalid.

And wishing to overthrow the government and the constitution to impose your narrow political views by force are a demonstration of a desire for authoritarianism.

Which says many things. One, that you believe that people should be violently forced to abide your political ideology, regardless of the will of the people, compact, constitution, or consent. Two, that you don't believe that your perspective is persuasive, vital or particularly compelling. As you wish to create an institution where only your views are permitted.

So violent authoritarianism AND a shit, violent ideology that can't compete in the market place of ideas. That's double terrible.

And finally, given that the man you wish to bestow with this unlimited power is a paranoid, vengful narcissist demonstrates a profound lack of judgment. As if consequence is the basis of your 'justification', the consequence for seating Trump as our Fuhrer would be catastrophic.

No thank you. Your ideas, from top to bottom, are awful. We won't be doing any of that. Nor will you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I happen to think he made an excellent point. What is wrong with agreeing with it? He is spot on.

It is all legal and constitutional.

So, just because you can, should you?

"So, just because you can, should you"

By applying that logic to the Supreme Court no. Just because it is legal and constitutional does not mean it is right. I'm sure you have heard of the tired worn-out adage "what Hitler did was legal."

Using the existing mechanics of government to silence people is wrong.

I reject his premise, and ergo yours.

 

[Skylar]

If a demonstration of any personal bias invalidates a point, then then your entire OP, dripping with personal bias, should be rejected and ignored by your own standard.

Demonstrating personal biases invalidates a point when someone is trying to set forth facts. I set forth evidence apart from my stated biases. The video evidence should speak for itself, regardless of the biases I hold.

Then your OP, dripping with personal bias is invalid by that standard and, by your own standard, should be ignored.

I disagree. I believe both my points and your OP should be discussed and addressed on their merits.

Thus, I reject your entire premise of willful ignorance in the presence of any personal bias.

 

[Skylar]

So is changing the number of supreme court justices. If abuse of procedural power is egregious enough to overthrow the government......then republicans would have been at the top of your list since 2016.

That statement reeks of personal bias. While Congress may have the right to change the number of justices in the Supreme Court... the founders in Federalist 10 spoke of the tendencies of one faction trying to use the government to silence another. Packing the court with people who agree with only one side of the argument is not an attempt to improve the government or its functioning, it is a blatant act of seizing power within itself, ironically. I'd rather neither side do it.

As far as 'packing the court' is concerned, how is that fundamentally different than what happened with Merrick Garland? Republicans used a technically constitutional tool to swing the court the way they wanted. It is a power the Senate possessed by the constitution.

Merrick Garland was not an attempt to pack the court. He was an attempt to fill a vacancy. The Senate acted well within its rights. Democrats when or if they take control of the Senate can just as easily engage in the same actions. I won't protest.

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

Exactly. Thank you.

Oh. I see how it is. Now you are letting someone else speak for you. You're better than that.

I happen to think he made an excellent point. What is wrong with agreeing with it? He is spot on.

It is all legal and constitutional.

So, just because you can, should you?

Should is a different question entirely. I think that the Senate should vote, up or down, for any nominee that the President nominates. I also don't necessarily think that court packing is a good idea. As the gravitas of the court is largely based on its perception of stability. Radically and publicly altering it would have consequences, likely eroding that perceptive.

But are both within the Senate's power? Absolutely.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And wishing to overthrow the government and the constitution to impose your narrow political views by force are a demonstration of a desire for authoritarianism.

Packing the court, to hopelessly skew a branch of government against one point of view is authoritarian within itself. It was not an intended function of that specific branch of government. At least not according to the Federalist paper I cited earlier.

I fear that one point of view will be silenced forever. That's not what this government, at its very roots, stands for. Both sides deserve a voice in every branch of government. Packing the court to a point where it expresses one point of view instead of both equally, does not grant both sides a voice.

The logic that it is "legal and constitutional" is nothing but a flimsy appeal to authority in lieu of a solid point.

 

[Coyote]

I happen to think he made an excellent point. What is wrong with agreeing with it? He is spot on.

It is all legal and constitutional.

So, just because you can, should you?

"So, just because you can, should you"

By applying that logic to the Supreme Court no. Just because it is legal and constitutional does not mean it is right. I'm sure you have heard of the tired worn-out adage "what Hitler did was legal."

Using the existing mechanics of government to silence people is wrong.

I reject his premise, and ergo yours.

I 100% agree, hence MY question AND the point of Skyler’s thread.

You can’t decry those Dems who call to add justices to the court without looking back at what Mitch McConnell set in place when he denied a hearing to Garland. He set a precedent. So, because he could...should he have?

If the Dems were to stack the courts, they too would set a precedent. Should they?


IMO, no. But they would have every right to.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a demonstration of any personal bias invalidates a point, then then your entire OP, dripping with personal bias, should be rejected and ignored by your own standard.

Demonstrating personal biases invalidates a point when someone is trying to set forth facts. I set forth evidence apart from my stated biases. The video evidence should speak for itself, regardless of the biases I hold.

Then your OP, dripping with personal bias is invalid by that standard and, by your own standard, should be ignored.

I disagree. I believe both my points and your OP should be discussed and addressed on their merits.

Thus, I reject your entire premise of willful ignorance in the presence of any personal bias.

Is this an assessment of me or of my post? I can't really tell.

 

[Coyote]

So is changing the number of supreme court justices. If abuse of procedural power is egregious enough to overthrow the government......then republicans would have been at the top of your list since 2016.

That statement reeks of personal bias. While Congress may have the right to change the number of justices in the Supreme Court... the founders in Federalist 10 spoke of the tendencies of one faction trying to use the government to silence another. Packing the court with people who agree with only one side of the argument is not an attempt to improve the government or its functioning, it is a blatant act of seizing power within itself, ironically. I'd rather neither side do it.

As far as 'packing the court' is concerned, how is that fundamentally different than what happened with Merrick Garland? Republicans used a technically constitutional tool to swing the court the way they wanted. It is a power the Senate possessed by the constitution.

Merrick Garland was not an attempt to pack the court. He was an attempt to fill a vacancy. The Senate acted well within its rights. Democrats when or if they take control of the Senate can just as easily engage in the same actions. I won't protest.

Merrick Garland was the partisan senate refusing to vote on a president's pick in order to prevent the president for excercising his consstitutional authority to nominate justices. And it was within the power of the Senate to do so.

Adding more justices to the Supreme court is also within the power to Senate. Even a partisan one. It is explicitly articulated authority of the Senate in the constitution.

Both are constitutional. Why then would one be an egregious abuse of power worthy of a coup and the other something you're apparently fine with?

And please, don't bother trying to pretend you're somehow impartial and objective while we're all subject to personal biases. We've both got perspectives and neither of us is a tabula rosa politically.

Exactly. Thank you.

Oh. I see how it is. Now you are letting someone else speak for you. You're better than that.

I happen to think he made an excellent point. What is wrong with agreeing with it? He is spot on.

It is all legal and constitutional.

So, just because you can, should you?

Should is a different question entirely. I think that the Senate should vote, up or down, for any nominee that the President nominates. I also don't necessarily think that court packing is a good idea. As the gravitas of the court is largely based on its perception of stability. Radically and publicly altering it would have consequences, likely eroding that perceptive.

But are both within the Senate's power? Absolutely.

Agree.

And potential positive in the Dems not having the Senate is it is easier for Biden to resist pressure from the portion of the party that wants to.

 

[Skylar]

If a demonstration of any personal bias invalidates a point, then then your entire OP, dripping with personal bias, should be rejected and ignored by your own standard.

Demonstrating personal biases invalidates a point when someone is trying to set forth facts. I set forth evidence apart from my stated biases. The video evidence should speak for itself, regardless of the biases I hold.

Then your OP, dripping with personal bias is invalid by that standard and, by your own standard, should be ignored.

I disagree. I believe both my points and your OP should be discussed and addressed on their merits.

Thus, I reject your entire premise of willful ignorance in the presence of any personal bias.

Is this an assessment of me or of my post? I can't really tell.

Its a rejection of your standard. As demonstrated by the words 'that standard' and 'your own standard'.

If you like, I'll gladly bold those bits so you won't miss them next time.

 

[Skylar]

And wishing to overthrow the government and the constitution to impose your narrow political views by force are a demonstration of a desire for authoritarianism.

Packing the court, to hopelessly skew a branch of government against one point of view is authoritarian within itself. It was not an intended function of that specific branch of government. At least not according to the Federalist paper I cited earlier.

Its no more authoritarian than the constitution itself. As the powers being exercised are a constitutionally delegated to the Senate. The Senate is explicitly in charge of the size of the Supreme Court.

And no party can 'pack the court' without the votes of the people sufficient to put a senate majority in place and, under our current system, elect a president.

It would be the application of delegated authority in accordance with the electoral results of the people. And would thus carry as much authority as the people do.

What you're suggesting is to MAKE the people abide your narrow political ideology without compact, without consent, and without constitution. To force them, violently, to abide your beliefs......with no vote. No input. No dissent. Just wiping your ass with the very concept of 'preserving' any 'sacred institution'.

That's violent authoritarianism. It demonstrates your desire to violently force people to obey you without consent, a recognition of your own ideology's failure to persuade, and a profound lack of judgment as the person you wish to imbue with this unlimited authority is an unstable malignant narcissist.

Nope. Your idea is awful. We're not doing that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can’t decry those Dems who call to add justices to the court without looking back at what Mitch McConnell set in place when he denied a hearing to Garland. He set a precedent. So, because he could...should he have?

No. Because one, in my opinion, is entirely different than the other. Packing the court is an attempt to silence one side, not give equal voice to it. Blocking a nominee does not fall within those bounds. It is a legitimate act of the Senate like you and Skylar said.

The idea that our court has to interpret our laws based on our political whims is sad. That's not what it was designed for, but both parties are doing exactly that. Impartiality used to be a thing. But from what I see, Coyote, impartiality has become an ineffective tool in a debate. I have watched for years as impartial voices are drowned out by hopeless biases and extremism. I am not reaching anyone by being moderate and impartial.

Where does that leave me, Coyote? I made a concerted effort to be dispassionate, you can easily see that from my previous posts on this board throughout the past few years. It's getting to a point where I have gotten too far involved in this fight and I must engage in tactics that I see are most advantageous to me, tactics that get people's attention. I have essentially given up on impartiality. There is not one impartial soul in this world. Not even mine. Not me, not you, not Skylar, not any of the billions of souls on this earth are capable of being absolutely impartial.

I can't sit this one out as much as I would like to. I didn't want to pick a side, I didn't want to fight, but now I feel as if I must.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Its a rejection of your standard. As demonstrated by the words 'that standard' and 'your own standard'.

If you like, I'll gladly bold those bits so you won't miss them next time.

A rejection of my standards with your own preconceived standards. Understood.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's violent authoritarianism. It demonstrates your desire to violently force people to obey you without consent, a recognition of your own ideology's failure to persuade, and a profound lack of judgment as the person you wish to imbue with this unlimited authority is an unstable malignant narcissist.

And packing the court is not any semblance of this idea?

Ah. I see where this is going.