Author Topic: The Biden Presidency v.2021  (Read 8432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19821
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #210 on: March 22, 2021, 10:35:17 AM »
I don't pay attention to the mainstream shit, but the local radio I get all my news from, very liberal since it is San Francisco, US hammering on it,and not in a flattering way either. They're at a loss as to a solution as well, and realize it's not any party or administration's problem, it's an all around American problem. But hey, keep kicking the can down the road politicians.

But it's not JUST the politicians.  Maybe not you, I'm not looking to point fingers at any one person here, but it won't take all afternoon to look back on posts ON THIS SITE to find heavy-handed fingers pointed at Trump actually blaming HIM for that problem.  Granted, he did nothing to fix it, the wall being a massive elephant in a tiny room, but to a large degree he followed the actual protocols that were followed before him and which are still being followed NOW.   I happen to agree with you, it's an all-around American problem, best solved independent of any party or any particular politician, but that's not how it's playing out in the minds of Americans, IMO.

I'm sure you can find posts of me pointing the finger at him  :rollin
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 10:45:55 AM by lonestar »

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #211 on: March 25, 2021, 01:19:15 PM »
...the way I see it, the USA and China are going to go to war sometime within the next 10 years. It has to happen and all signs point to both nations gearing up for it. It wonít be a direct conflict of course, itíll be a proxy war played out in the Pacific. China will invade Taiwan and that'll kick it off.

"China threat to invade Taiwan is 'closer than most think', says US admiral"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/taiwan-china-threat-admiral-john-aquilino


From the article:

The Chinese threat to invade Taiwan is serious and more imminent than many understand, the US admiral chosen to lead the Pentagonís Indo-Pacific region has warned.

China considers taking control of Taiwan its ďNo 1 priorityĒ, Adm John Aquilino, nominated to become commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate armed services committee on Tuesday.

ďMy opinion is that this problem is much closer to us than most think and we have to take this on,Ē he told the panel.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10344
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #212 on: March 26, 2021, 09:12:08 AM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Dublagent66

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8281
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #213 on: March 26, 2021, 10:50:51 AM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4157
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #214 on: March 26, 2021, 10:58:21 AM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19821
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #215 on: March 26, 2021, 11:07:32 AM »
It was a dumb question from a dumb reporter, she was digging for copy and got it. The dipshit also asked what he thought of potentially going up against Trump in '24.

And didn't Donald declare his candidacy on like day 2?

Offline Volante99

  • Posts: 709
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #216 on: March 26, 2021, 11:18:03 AM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Offline Dublagent66

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8281
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #217 on: March 26, 2021, 11:41:39 AM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Funny.  Last I heard, Ozzy Osbourne is more coherent than our current so-called incumbent.   :lol

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27610
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #218 on: March 26, 2021, 12:16:23 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Every 1st term president, this date seems to get closer to when they start  :lol it hardly matters IMO although a Trump vs Biden election is going to be really old and tiring from a citizen's perspective IMO.  Can we seriously get some younger and closer to their prime people running the show?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #219 on: March 26, 2021, 12:44:49 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Okay, then how about they both suck?   What's laughable is that after four years of Liberals screaming about the "normalization" of Trump, the standard for Biden appears to be.... Trump.   :) :) :)   (I kid, I kid.)

More seriously, I think we've conclusively proved that "speaking well" and "speaking poorly" has little to do with the efficacy of the actual leading of the country, or at least a lot less than "party affiliation of the reviewer".

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #220 on: March 26, 2021, 01:06:51 PM »
It was a dumb question from a dumb reporter, she was digging for copy and got it. The dipshit also asked what he thought of potentially going up against Trump in '24.

And didn't Donald declare his candidacy on like day 2?

The 'reporter' was definitely fishing for a headline, as you say. Volante99 pointed out in another thread that the ratings of all networks have been tanking since Trump disappeared, and no matter how much they claim to hate him they're all praying for a Trump-Biden rematch.

That said I think it's important Biden indicates the intention of long-term planning, continuity and predictability. I doubt it will happen but I'm pretty sure a Biden-Trump 2024 rematch would be won by Biden. Harris-Trump, I'm not so sure. Biden's trying to piece back together what Trump wrecked and I imagine one of the main questions he is asked in all of these geopolitical meetings with his international allies is: "How reliable a long-term partner are you right now? Can we expect that 4 years from now everything we are now agreeing to and building our political futures around will again be upended because Trump or one of his proxies (Gaetz, Cruz) is going to start screaming about how "THIS IS THE WURST DEEL IN HISTORRY AND EVERYONE IS RIPPING US OFF!!!"?

One of Trump's main driving forces is vengeance, he's that broken, and Biden is different to Obama. With Obama, absolutely everything he ever did had to be ripped up simply because the black guy who once laughed at him did it, but with Biden it's way more personal. Biden beat Trump. If Trump gets re-elected the world becomes a daycare centre all over again. So I think Biden is correct to announce early on his intention to serve more than one term because his allies need to know that America intends to remain at the adults' table for at least the rest of this critical decade.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2021, 01:14:00 PM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4157
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #221 on: March 26, 2021, 01:12:40 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Okay, then how about they both suck?   What's laughable is that after four years of Liberals screaming about the "normalization" of Trump, the standard for Biden appears to be.... Trump.   :) :) :)   (I kid, I kid.)

More seriously, I think we've conclusively proved that "speaking well" and "speaking poorly" has little to do with the efficacy of the actual leading of the country, or at least a lot less than "party affiliation of the reviewer".

If the question to the 2 POTUS' is "what is 2+2?", and the 2 answers are:

1) Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh,.....*pause*.....Abeduh, Abeduh, fuh, fuh, fuh, fuh...FOUR!

2) A 5 minute smoooooth but incoherent ramble about how he has the best, amazingly huuuuuge brain.

I take #1.

They both suck at two VERY different things.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25517
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #222 on: March 26, 2021, 01:36:28 PM »
It was a dumb question from a dumb reporter, she was digging for copy and got it. The dipshit also asked what he thought of potentially going up against Trump in '24.

And didn't Donald declare his candidacy on like day 2?

The 'reporter' was definitely fishing for a headline, as you say. Volante99 pointed out in another thread that the ratings of all networks have been tanking since Trump disappeared, and no matter how much they claim to hate him they're all praying for a Trump-Biden rematch.

That said I think it's important Biden indicates the intention of long-term planning, continuity and predictability.
I doubt it will happen but I'm pretty sure a Biden-Trump 2024 rematch would be won by Biden. Harris-Trump, I'm not so sure. Biden's trying to piece back together what Trump wrecked and I imagine one of the main questions he is asked in all of these geopolitical meetings with his international allies is: "How reliable a long-term partner are you right now? Can we expect that 4 years from now everything we are now agreeing to and building our political futures around will again be upended because Trump or one of his proxies (Gaetz, Cruz) is going to start screaming about how "THIS IS THE WURST DEEL IN HISTORRY AND EVERYONE IS RIPPING US OFF!!!"?

One of Trump's main driving forces is vengeance, he's that broken, and Biden is different to Obama. With Obama, absolutely everything he ever did had to be ripped up simply because the black guy who once laughed at him did it, but with Biden it's way more personal. Biden beat Trump. If Trump gets re-elected the world becomes a daycare centre all over again. So I think Biden is correct to announce early on his intention to serve more than one term because his allies need to know that America intends to remain at the adults' table for at least the rest of this critical decade.
Precisely this. Biden will never run and we all know that. He does need to signal stability, though. As I said elsewhere, we need 3 terms, at least, of stable and continuous government to undo what Trump has done to our reputation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #223 on: March 26, 2021, 01:45:08 PM »
Notwithstanding the above, I've been... not "happy", but reasonably surprised by the Biden Presidency so far.   It's been ideologically reasonable, a seemingly fair balance between specific campaign promises and a general adherence to the "I'm going to govern ALL Americans, not just those that voted for me."  There's a real "1985" vibe to things, where big important issues were handled in meetings and face to face, not in press conferences, in front of the camera, or by Twitter.  He's done a remarkable job at severing ties with the previous administration, without severing ties with Presidential history (no easy task!).   He's kept the rhetoric low key.   Everything a skeptic who didn't want what we had, and didn't want what the rest of the Democratic Party was offering could hope for.

But the cracks are beginning to show.  The press is rousing rabble, and the natives are starting to get restless.  I don't tweet much, but I read them, and I'm starting to see more and more like this:
https://twitter.com/robreiner/status/1375177686218248198?s=20

(ANY of Rob Reiner's posts can be put in here; he's clearly not interested in any detente or thawing of the divisiveness.)

That's not official government business, and I get that, but it's a reflecting mirror.   As for official government business, Jen Psaki, is trying out her Sarah Huckabee Sanders costume in early preparation for Halloween, playing SHS-type games in her press appearances.  Peter Doocy asked a fair question about the President's policy and preferences regarding the White House press pool, and she answered with snark ("Well, I'm answering you now, aren't I?" or something akin to that). Not that he didn't use the opportunities to take shots, but at least Trump DID call on Jim Acosta on a regular basis.

What's the point other than stir trouble?  If we're playing by playground rules ("you did it first") then apparently Trump et al. couldn't have been that bad.  Good for the goose and all that.  And more importantly, when does it all end if NEITHER side is willing to be the first?  If these trends spread to our elected officials - and it already has to some extent (Chris Murphy calling out Ted Cruz, for one) - I think things could spiral out of control pretty quickly, and unlike during the last term, when everything was put back on the President as "his responsibility", there won't be an easy scapegoat here.   It won't be "Republicans" or "Democrats", it will just be "us". This is, as Dave is wont to say, who we are. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #224 on: March 26, 2021, 02:08:10 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Okay, then how about they both suck?   What's laughable is that after four years of Liberals screaming about the "normalization" of Trump, the standard for Biden appears to be.... Trump.   :) :) :)   (I kid, I kid.)

More seriously, I think we've conclusively proved that "speaking well" and "speaking poorly" has little to do with the efficacy of the actual leading of the country, or at least a lot less than "party affiliation of the reviewer".

If the question to the 2 POTUS' is "what is 2+2?", and the 2 answers are:

1) Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh, Abeduh,.....*pause*.....Abeduh, Abeduh, fuh, fuh, fuh, fuh...FOUR!

2) A 5 minute smoooooth but incoherent ramble about how he has the best, amazingly huuuuuge brain.

I take #1.

They both suck at two VERY different things.

I would choose that too.  That's like saying, though, "given a choice between syphilis and gonorrhea, which do you choose?"   I'd kinda rather not have either, if it's all the same. 

As I said above, the fear of many during the Trump Presidency was the "normalization" of all things Trump. So why is that the  minimum bar now? 

(And keep in mind, I'm NOT bagging on Biden; I've said repeatedly that I am a fan, and that I have a respect for what he's doing and why.   His stuttering or stumbling is not how I judge a President.  That respect for him - and the trust that goes with it - does not extend very far beyond him, however.)

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4157
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #225 on: March 26, 2021, 02:16:38 PM »
Trump isn't the bar.  The bar is the other POTUS in modern history.
I brought up Trump as a particular response to that particular post, and that particular poster, to illustrate the irony in making fun of a POTUS speaking ability.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1591
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #226 on: March 26, 2021, 02:23:18 PM »
Agreed, I don't think anyone is suggesting Trump is the bar. Every once in a while a Trump fan will appear and mock Biden's speech and I think it's important when that happens to point out that Trump's pisspoor speaking abilities are due to his near-total lack of knowledge of global affairs. Biden's pisspoor speaking abilities are not. Trump's empty speech reflects an empty mind, Biden's tangled speech does not reflect a tangled mind. Get 10 of America's leading professors of history and geopolitics to grill both of them live on air, Biden will impress each and every one of those professors with the depth of his knowledge. Trump will come off like a dim-witted 6-year-old.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, 26th September 2018.

Online lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 19821
  • Gender: Male
  • Silly Hatted Knife Chucker
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #227 on: March 26, 2021, 02:31:53 PM »
It was a dumb question from a dumb reporter, she was digging for copy and got it. The dipshit also asked what he thought of potentially going up against Trump in '24.

And didn't Donald declare his candidacy on like day 2?

The 'reporter' was definitely fishing for a headline, as you say. Volante99 pointed out in another thread that the ratings of all networks have been tanking since Trump disappeared, and no matter how much they claim to hate him they're all praying for a Trump-Biden rematch.

That said I think it's important Biden indicates the intention of long-term planning, continuity and predictability. I doubt it will happen but I'm pretty sure a Biden-Trump 2024 rematch would be won by Biden. Harris-Trump, I'm not so sure. Biden's trying to piece back together what Trump wrecked and I imagine one of the main questions he is asked in all of these geopolitical meetings with his international allies is: "How reliable a long-term partner are you right now? Can we expect that 4 years from now everything we are now agreeing to and building our political futures around will again be upended because Trump or one of his proxies (Gaetz, Cruz) is going to start screaming about how "THIS IS THE WURST DEEL IN HISTORRY AND EVERYONE IS RIPPING US OFF!!!"?

One of Trump's main driving forces is vengeance, he's that broken, and Biden is different to Obama. With Obama, absolutely everything he ever did had to be ripped up simply because the black guy who once laughed at him did it, but with Biden it's way more personal. Biden beat Trump. If Trump gets re-elected the world becomes a daycare centre all over again. So I think Biden is correct to announce early on his intention to serve more than one term because his allies need to know that America intends to remain at the adults' table for at least the rest of this critical decade.

Yeah, for me it seemed stupid at the time considering the three massive domestic issues that were glaring everyone in the face, immigration, the shooting, and the voting rights laws. That's more than enough for some real meat and potatoes news, but yeah, go for the low hanging fruit since that's what we've been dumbed down to I guess. I listened to most of the conference, and Joe was audibly annoyed with that question.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8181
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
    • The ANABASIS - Music Making a Difference
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #228 on: April 13, 2021, 03:11:44 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Okay, then how about they both suck?   What's laughable is that after four years of Liberals screaming about the "normalization" of Trump, the standard for Biden appears to be.... Trump.   :) :) :)   (I kid, I kid.)

More seriously, I think we've conclusively proved that "speaking well" and "speaking poorly" has little to do with the efficacy of the actual leading of the country, or at least a lot less than "party affiliation of the reviewer".


This is the worst form of false-equivalence and i see you doing it in practically every thread over here.  Whataboutism isn't a good argument.


There is a MASSIVE difference between Donald Trump, an obvious and blatant racist, misogynist, credibly accused serial sexual abuser who clearly suffers from one of the most glaring and textbook cases of malignant narcissistic personality disorder I've seen in 40+ years of observing national politics.  Dude inspired a riot that resulted in the seat of our government being literally invaded by an angry mob and you're gonna sit here and claim that he's no different than an old-school centrist Democrat who's been in Washington for 50 years and who EVERYONE -even most in the opposition party agree is generally a "nice guy"?  Please.  :\




Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 48472
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #229 on: April 14, 2021, 08:27:20 PM »
So I walk in the bedroom and my wife has....Hannity on TV. She immediately lays into me that Biden's going to announce he's adding 4 seats to the Supreme Court, and that we're moving to Ireland if that happens!

Um..ok dear.. :lol


I haven't read anything about this but I did a google search and found this..

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132


It does say that Biden is against the idea and it has no shot of passing. I must say that I'm against it too.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 976
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #230 on: April 14, 2021, 08:52:35 PM »
So I walk in the bedroom and my wife has....Hannity on TV. She immediately lays into me that Biden's going to announce he's adding 4 seats to the Supreme Court, and that we're moving to Ireland if that happens!

Um..ok dear.. :lol


I haven't read anything about this but I did a google search and found this..

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-introduce-bill-expand-supreme-court-9-13-justices-n1264132


It does say that Biden is against the idea and it has no shot of passing. I must say that I'm against it too.

not a great time to be in Ireland either, looks like the Troubles might start again because of Brexit https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-56678489

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 48472
  • Gender: Male
  • Kip Rolled
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #231 on: April 14, 2021, 08:53:58 PM »
I wouldn't go near Northern Ireland.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25517
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #232 on: April 14, 2021, 09:49:29 PM »
It does say that Biden is against the idea and it has no shot of passing. I must say that I'm against it too.
I'm against it, too, but only because it won't solve anything. Four years from now President Cruz would just add 2 more. Believe it or not this has all happened before. I posted this in the strangely locked SCOTUS thread a few months ago:

Quote
In the 1863  Stephen J. Field was sworn in as the 10th justice. Lincoln not only expanded the SCOTUS, but also gerrymandered the judicial districts to merge all of the Southern justices into two circuits, effectively rendering them meaningless. When it comes to court packing he really took the prize. A few years later, after Lincoln got clipped, a republican congress set the size of the court at 7, thus ensuring that Johnson couldn't nominate any justices to fill the vacancies that had arisen. We're talking about a 6 year stretch of sleazy partisan bullshit that would be the wet dreams of Mitch McConnell, were anything other than dust able to come out of the old fuck. The result of all of this monkeying around with the court was the Judiciary Act of 1869, and the court has essentially remained the same ever since.  For a time I'm sure it was quite evident that there would just be an ever-increasing number of justices in place, but it didn't' turn out that way.

There was also a real attempt to increase the Court during the Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) administration. In a nut shell he made clear his intentions and one of the justices mysteriously changed his stance on a matter making such a change unnecessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

For my part, I think some change is necessary to protect the court from the continuing gamesmanship we're seeing. Just adding liberal justices is more gaming. What they're wanting to do now is the tat for Mitch's hairy, sweaty, and saggy tit. What he pulled over the last couple of years is amazingly corrupt, and the solution isn't just to pull some similarly corrupt stunt hoping to balance things out for a year or two.  There actually are some changes that could help to do that. That won't satisfy the left, though, as the changes won't immediately benefit them, and the right will object because they've already won the SCOTUS Bullshit National Championship.

Because the thread was locked I can't quote it here, unfortunately, but here's my much more verbose thought process on this. Essentially the court needs insulating and time to heal rather than packing. You might check it out, as well as Stadler's response for some [I think] interesting discussion on the matter.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=46655.msg2714106#msg2714106
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23395
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #233 on: April 15, 2021, 05:51:21 AM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Online jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 34651
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #234 on: April 15, 2021, 06:28:05 AM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Not a bad idea.  Every POTUS term, the longest standing SCOTUS is required to retire?  Something like that.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 23395
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #235 on: April 15, 2021, 06:45:28 AM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Not a bad idea.  Every POTUS term, the longest standing SCOTUS is required to retire?  Something like that.

Yeah. Something along those line. Every president gets at least one court pick.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4176
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #236 on: April 15, 2021, 06:49:01 AM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Not a bad idea.  Every POTUS term, the longest standing SCOTUS is required to retire?  Something like that.

Yeah. Something along those line. Every president gets at least one court pick.
I think that only works if the justice has to retire 6 months into the new term, or something like that, giving the president 3.5 years to get their nominee approved. That way an opposing party doesn't get to use some lame ass hypocritical excuse for not voting on their nominee. But overall I like the idea. Max supreme court term of 36 years that way. Still seems to long, but better than life.

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25517
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #237 on: April 15, 2021, 10:52:29 AM »
My recollection is that 18 year term limits give every president 2 picks. I don't know if this would be a good thing or not, though. Things don't always work the way you want. One of the better ideas was to create a different court that grants cert to cases that actually haven't really been decided yet. That way the SCOTUS doesn't get to pick and choose what they want to do each year. That would no doubt have problems, as well, but it's an interesting notion. A shakeup of the circuit courts may also have a good effect. There are several options that would help that don't simply involve further politicization.

There was a situation in the last term when the SCOTUS heard the exact same case a second time, hoping for a different outcome. The first time was when Scalia's chair was still warm, so they didn't have the conservative majority they were looking for. The Fifth Circuit waited until Trump picked a reliably conservative justice and then kicked the case right back up to the new court. Rather than simply denying cert on the basis that the original problem still existed, they heard the case again. This was ridiculous. Interestingly, they did get the vote they were hoping for from Kavanaugh, but Roberts recognized the bullshit at work and shot it down, reversing his original opinion. As he stated, he disagreed with the first verdict, but it was legal and thus the law of the land, and as such he wasn't going to reverse it now simply because they could. I have my problems with Roberts as a justice, but as a chief justice I really like the guy.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #238 on: April 19, 2021, 02:36:24 PM »
Am I actually seeing headlines noting Biden's intention to run for president in 2024, in March of freaking 2021?!

Does he even remember what year it is?  :lol

I will take a guy that has trouble speaking smoothly, but conveys a clear and coherent message....over a guy that speaks smoothly, but rambles incoherently from topic to topic to bat-shit crazy topics.
JMO.

Right? I always get a laugh when my MAGA friends make fun of Bidenís speaking, because, you know, the last guy

Frankly, itís refreshing to have someone up there speaking on topics other than how awesome he is.

Okay, then how about they both suck?   What's laughable is that after four years of Liberals screaming about the "normalization" of Trump, the standard for Biden appears to be.... Trump.   :) :) :)   (I kid, I kid.)

More seriously, I think we've conclusively proved that "speaking well" and "speaking poorly" has little to do with the efficacy of the actual leading of the country, or at least a lot less than "party affiliation of the reviewer".


This is the worst form of false-equivalence and i see you doing it in practically every thread over here.  Whataboutism isn't a good argument.


There is a MASSIVE difference between Donald Trump, an obvious and blatant racist, misogynist, credibly accused serial sexual abuser who clearly suffers from one of the most glaring and textbook cases of malignant narcissistic personality disorder I've seen in 40+ years of observing national politics.  Dude inspired a riot that resulted in the seat of our government being literally invaded by an angry mob and you're gonna sit here and claim that he's no different than an old-school centrist Democrat who's been in Washington for 50 years and who EVERYONE -even most in the opposition party agree is generally a "nice guy"?  Please.  :\

Not really what I'm saying; I don't agree with all that you wrote there, but I don't have to; in my opinion, Trump and Biden are world's apart, and I LIKE Biden. I'm actually pretty happy with his presidency so far; he's largely doing what needs to be done FOR THE COUNTRY, as opposed to FOR HIM or FOR HIS PARTY.    I'm actually kind of poking fun at something similar to what you're pointing out. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #239 on: April 19, 2021, 02:54:08 PM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Not a bad idea.  Every POTUS term, the longest standing SCOTUS is required to retire?  Something like that.


"Good cases make bad law".  This is what I was lampooning above in the post that Barry quoted.  Don't - like El Barto said - criticize the guy before for doing "x" and then just do your version of "x".   That's an important part of something that has been lost in the social media/twitter/move at lightning speed analysis of our government.  It was never ever meant to be perfect in each moment, in each snapshot, but to equalize over time.   The idea is that - under normal circumstances, and with no Mitch McConnell's or Harry Reid's - reason would control and prevent any one side from taking advantage.  Like football:  you don't blow out the knee of your opponents quarterback, becuase your quarterback instantly becomes a target.   

We're also talking about another relatively new phenomenon, and that is the Court as political tool. That in and of itself is a fallacy, and ought not be the basis for decisions moving forward.

The Court was always intended to have an UNPREDICTABLE TERM.  That's important.   Trump could have just as easily gotten no picks.   Biden could get 0 or 1 or 3 or 5.    The real "crime" of McConnell was just that; he made an election ABOUT the Court for the first time in ages, and better or worse, the country spoke.   It's not at all a certainty that Trump would have won had there not been a seat open and it's just as possible that he would have won even BIGGER had there not been.   I flat out do not support ANY measure that would make it possible to look at a calendar and determine that "President x" will have "y number of seats" on the Court to fill.  I think that would be disasterous to the country in terms of unintended consequences.   It is very likely that Biden will have one, possibly two, maybe even three seats to fill on the court in his term, and if not in that term, then the next.    What comes around, goes around.

And let's not forget, there would STILL be a conservative majority; Trump didn't steal TWO seats.  He was getting two seats either way.   Either Merrick Garland got on, and Amy Coney Barrett gets on, or Neil Gorsuch gets on and Biden picks the last seat.  Either way, that's still 5-4.   And, I need to point out, that analysis is bullshit in and of itself; it was a conservative court that gave us abortion as a fundamental right, and the current conservative court upheld Obamacare and legalized gay marriage.  Not sure what it is, sort of total world domination, that the Democrats are really asking for here. 

(And not for nothing, but I got a similar question from my father about that same Hannity point; and that cocksucker - Hannity, not my dad - didn't waste one minute of airtime in explaining that BIDEN has nothing to do with it, that the SENATE has to approve that, and not in a simply majority because of the filibuster.)

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25517
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #240 on: April 19, 2021, 03:31:05 PM »
I'm also not for adding seats to the SC, however, I do think it needs a shakeup. I know it was legal and all, but it is kind of bullshit that a single term president (who lost the popular vote twice) got to select 1/3 of the court. I don't think the court should be for life. There should be set term limits with a member getting swapped out each term. Have something in place for the rare instance of one dying while being on the court.

Not a bad idea.  Every POTUS term, the longest standing SCOTUS is required to retire?  Something like that.


"Good cases make bad law".  This is what I was lampooning above in the post that Barry quoted.  Don't - like El Barto said - criticize the guy before for doing "x" and then just do your version of "x".   That's an important part of something that has been lost in the social media/twitter/move at lightning speed analysis of our government.  It was never ever meant to be perfect in each moment, in each snapshot, but to equalize over time.   The idea is that - under normal circumstances, and with no Mitch McConnell's or Harry Reid's - reason would control and prevent any one side from taking advantage.  Like football:  you don't blow out the knee of your opponents quarterback, becuase your quarterback instantly becomes a target.   

We're also talking about another relatively new phenomenon, and that is the Court as political tool. That in and of itself is a fallacy, and ought not be the basis for decisions moving forward.

The Court was always intended to have an UNPREDICTABLE TERM.  That's important.   Trump could have just as easily gotten no picks.   Biden could get 0 or 1 or 3 or 5.    The real "crime" of McConnell was just that; he made an election ABOUT the Court for the first time in ages, and better or worse, the country spoke.   It's not at all a certainty that Trump would have won had there not been a seat open and it's just as possible that he would have won even BIGGER had there not been.   I flat out do not support ANY measure that would make it possible to look at a calendar and determine that "President x" will have "y number of seats" on the Court to fill.  I think that would be disasterous to the country in terms of unintended consequences.   It is very likely that Biden will have one, possibly two, maybe even three seats to fill on the court in his term, and if not in that term, then the next.    What comes around, goes around.

And let's not forget, there would STILL be a conservative majority; Trump didn't steal TWO seats.  He was getting two seats either way.   Either Merrick Garland got on, and Amy Coney Barrett gets on, or Neil Gorsuch gets on and Biden picks the last seat.  Either way, that's still 5-4.   And, I need to point out, that analysis is bullshit in and of itself; it was a conservative court that gave us abortion as a fundamental right, and the current conservative court upheld Obamacare and legalized gay marriage.  Not sure what it is, sort of total world domination, that the Democrats are really asking for here. 

(And not for nothing, but I got a similar question from my father about that same Hannity point; and that cocksucker - Hannity, not my dad - didn't waste one minute of airtime in explaining that BIDEN has nothing to do with it, that the SENATE has to approve that, and not in a simply majority because of the filibuster.)
Yeah, I really don't get any part of the bolded paragraph. I agree it would still be a nominally conservative majority, but your Garland/Barrett, Gorsuch/Biden's pick thing doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we got Gorsuch/Barrettt. Trump should have gotten one pick. Moreover, the current court might have decided Sebelius the same way, but Obergfell was doomed under this court. I'm certain of that.

As for the every president gets two picks part, keep in mind that no majority would be locked in place for the next 30 years, which is what the conservatives are shooting for right now. I'd say that we're currently in a race to the cradle. While I'm uncertain of the practical ramifications of how this would play out (I don't think anybody could really predict it), I do think that this would likely keep the appointment of justices from being the existential imperative it's currently being made out to be. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #241 on: April 19, 2021, 06:49:51 PM »


This is the worst form of false-equivalence and i see you doing it in practically every thread over here.  Whataboutism isn't a good argument.


There is a MASSIVE difference between Donald Trump, an obvious and blatant racist, misogynist, credibly accused serial sexual abuser who clearly suffers from one of the most glaring and textbook cases of malignant narcissistic personality disorder I've seen in 40+ years of observing national politics.  Dude inspired a riot that resulted in the seat of our government being literally invaded by an angry mob and you're gonna sit here and claim that he's no different than an old-school centrist Democrat who's been in Washington for 50 years and who EVERYONE -even most in the opposition party agree is generally a "nice guy"?  Please.  :\

I want to revisit this; I'm quoting you only because you used the term I want to talk about.   

"Whataboutism".   Since when did this become an insult?  Or a counter to an argument?   We live in one of the more divisive, partisan times in our country, at least in recent decades, and we're in the midst of a exceedingly over-reliance on opinion over fact, as evidenced by a 24-7 news cycle that is more interested in capturing eye-balls than communicating any real, complicated and complex fact patterns.   So in that hyper-partisan, hyper-tactical, hyper-hypocritical time, what is more relevant than asking someone to point out (or, more boldly, pointing out for them) where their analysis seems inconsistent with the larger set of facts as we know them?

I see nothing problematic in calling out someone who is seemingly opportunistically critical of a trait or characteristic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 27608
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #242 on: April 19, 2021, 07:43:22 PM »
Yeah, I really don't get any part of the bolded paragraph. I agree it would still be a nominally conservative majority, but your Garland/Barrett, Gorsuch/Biden's pick thing doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we got Gorsuch/Barrettt. Trump should have gotten one pick. Moreover, the current court might have decided Sebelius the same way, but Obergfell was doomed under this court. I'm certain of that.

No, he would have gotten a minimum of two picks.   Let's say that McConnell was right, and no lame duck President should select; Trump gets Scalia's spot (Gorsuch), and he gets Kennedy's spot (Kavanaugh).  By McConnell's rights, Ginsberg's spot (Barrett) becomes a Biden pick (assuming he still wins).   It's a 5-4 court.  On the other hand, let's say McConnell was right, and if the vacancy opens, the sitting President gets to pick.  So Obama fills the Scalia spot (presumably Garland), but Trump still gets Kennedy's spot (Gorsuch, if there's an order, Kavanaugh if not) and Ginsberg's spot.  It's STILL a 5-4 court. 

Quote
As for the every president gets two picks part, keep in mind that no majority would be locked in place for the next 30 years, which is what the conservatives are shooting for right now. I'd say that we're currently in a race to the cradle. While I'm uncertain of the practical ramifications of how this would play out (I don't think anybody could really predict it), I do think that this would likely keep the appointment of justices from being the existential imperative it's currently being made out to be.

Now it's my turn to not follow.  First, the very fact that we're talking about the Court in partisan terms is part of the problem.  Most people grossly overstate the importance of that makeup.  Almost half the cases since 2000 have been unanimous.  Not majority, UNANIMOUS.   Less than 20% of cases are split.   The famous "cake" case?  7-2.  Most of this "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed"-type stuff is partisan fear-mongering. 

I think there will be implicit forum shopping if we continue this partisan look at the court, and begin to artificially try to compensate for the perception of bias where none exists.   I'm gay and can't buy my cake?   I wait two years for the turnover.  I have a sort of faith that the justices themselves - at least those who grew up in an age of bipartisan jurisprudence - aren't going to fall for that, but as we start to make the nomination/confirmation so explicitly part of the terms of each President - and as such the election of that President - you'll start to get candidates that are of the Gaetz/Tlaib mold, who are more interested in making their name and fomenting the dissension than actually engaging in the philosophical practice of law.

it ain't broke; there's no reason - short of party vengeance - to fix.  There's nothing TO fix.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #243 on: April 20, 2021, 03:11:31 AM »


This is the worst form of false-equivalence and i see you doing it in practically every thread over here.  Whataboutism isn't a good argument.


There is a MASSIVE difference between Donald Trump, an obvious and blatant racist, misogynist, credibly accused serial sexual abuser who clearly suffers from one of the most glaring and textbook cases of malignant narcissistic personality disorder I've seen in 40+ years of observing national politics.  Dude inspired a riot that resulted in the seat of our government being literally invaded by an angry mob and you're gonna sit here and claim that he's no different than an old-school centrist Democrat who's been in Washington for 50 years and who EVERYONE -even most in the opposition party agree is generally a "nice guy"?  Please.  :\

I want to revisit this; I'm quoting you only because you used the term I want to talk about.   

"Whataboutism".   Since when did this become an insult?  Or a counter to an argument?   We live in one of the more divisive, partisan times in our country, at least in recent decades, and we're in the midst of a exceedingly over-reliance on opinion over fact, as evidenced by a 24-7 news cycle that is more interested in capturing eye-balls than communicating any real, complicated and complex fact patterns.   So in that hyper-partisan, hyper-tactical, hyper-hypocritical time, what is more relevant than asking someone to point out (or, more boldly, pointing out for them) where their analysis seems inconsistent with the larger set of facts as we know them?

I see nothing problematic in calling out someone who is seemingly opportunistically critical of a trait or characteristic.

Since when is whataboutism an insult? He was pointing out that you did not have a valid argument except to claim "What about X?"
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25517
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The Biden Presidency v.2021
« Reply #244 on: April 20, 2021, 08:35:40 AM »
Yeah, I really don't get any part of the bolded paragraph. I agree it would still be a nominally conservative majority, but your Garland/Barrett, Gorsuch/Biden's pick thing doesn't make sense to me. I mean, we got Gorsuch/Barrettt. Trump should have gotten one pick. Moreover, the current court might have decided Sebelius the same way, but Obergfell was doomed under this court. I'm certain of that.

No, he would have gotten a minimum of two picks.   Let's say that McConnell was right, and no lame duck President should select; Trump gets Scalia's spot (Gorsuch), and he gets Kennedy's spot (Kavanaugh).  By McConnell's rights, Ginsberg's spot (Barrett) becomes a Biden pick (assuming he still wins).   It's a 5-4 court.  On the other hand, let's say McConnell was right, and if the vacancy opens, the sitting President gets to pick.  So Obama fills the Scalia spot (presumably Garland), but Trump still gets Kennedy's spot (Gorsuch, if there's an order, Kavanaugh if not) and Ginsberg's spot.  It's STILL a 5-4 court. 
Damn, I forgot about Kennedy. However, that still creates a problem with your point. For one, you're assuming rational and non-hypocritical behavior. We didn't get that. Your point was that Trump didn't steal two picks, and I suppose you may be right, but he stole one either way because of that hypocritical behavior.



Quote
Quote
As for the every president gets two picks part, keep in mind that no majority would be locked in place for the next 30 years, which is what the conservatives are shooting for right now. I'd say that we're currently in a race to the cradle. While I'm uncertain of the practical ramifications of how this would play out (I don't think anybody could really predict it), I do think that this would likely keep the appointment of justices from being the existential imperative it's currently being made out to be.

Now it's my turn to not follow.  First, the very fact that we're talking about the Court in partisan terms is part of the problem.  Most people grossly overstate the importance of that makeup.  Almost half the cases since 2000 have been unanimous.  Not majority, UNANIMOUS.   Less than 20% of cases are split.   The famous "cake" case?  7-2.  Most of this "women will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed"-type stuff is partisan fear-mongering. 

I think there will be implicit forum shopping if we continue this partisan look at the court, and begin to artificially try to compensate for the perception of bias where none exists.   I'm gay and can't buy my cake?   I wait two years for the turnover.  I have a sort of faith that the justices themselves - at least those who grew up in an age of bipartisan jurisprudence - aren't going to fall for that, but as we start to make the nomination/confirmation so explicitly part of the terms of each President - and as such the election of that President - you'll start to get candidates that are of the Gaetz/Tlaib mold, who are more interested in making their name and fomenting the dissension than actually engaging in the philosophical practice of law.

it ain't broke; there's no reason - short of party vengeance - to fix.  There's nothing TO fix.
As you know, I get how the court works. I get that most of these people understand the big picture and tend to act responsibly. My problem isn't really with the current makeup of the court. You're suggesting that the problem is how we the people view the court in partisan terms. What I'm saying is that it's how our politicians see the court in partisan terms that's the problem. Both sides are increasingly trying to get their own results oriented justices on there, and the longer they can stay the better. I asked you this before, but I don't recall that you answered. Do you think Mitch or the Trump faction of the GOP want a court made up of 12 Roberts and Kennedys, both justices who seem willing to set their biases aside and do what's right, or do you think they want an entire court of CFTs? Or Ted Cruzes? Same goes for the other side. Cruz went on record saying as much. As I stated a while back, my interest in fixing the court isn't so much because it's broken, but because so many are desperately trying to break it, and they stand a decent chance of succeeding. I haven't seen enough of her to gain an opinion, but I suspect there's a pretty good chance that ACB actually is exactly what they're looking for, and it's very possible that the president who replaces her will be voted on by your great grand child.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson