Trump's SCOTUS

[clubgop]

I don't think one of the Parties has ever been women-centric (anti-man even) before. Prohibition was a women thing, and would indicate that women had control of one of the 2 Parties at the time, but women couldn't even vote then so kind of ruins the example.

It was shortly after that they got it. It is no mere coincidence that the 18th Amendment is what it is and the 19th Amendment is what it is.

[Martin Hash]

I don't think one of the Parties has ever been women-centric (anti-man even) before. Prohibition was a women thing, and would indicate that women had control of one of the 2 Parties at the time, but women couldn't even vote then so kind of ruins the example.

It was shortly after that they got it. It is no mere coincidence that the 18th Amendment is what it is and the 19th Amendment is what it is.

No, prohibition was first, then suffrage.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think the Parties have ever been women-centric (anti-man even) before. Prohibition was a women thing, and would indicate that women had control of one of the 2 Parties at the time, but women couldn't even vote then so kind of ruins the example.

Adams & Jefferson were total enemies at this level but that was before Parties.

Trump is a force unto himself, not loyal to either Party, so it's not him.

I don't think what's going on now has any historical precedence.

You are missing the point. Women have always wielded soft power in Western societies, which actually is the more powerful realm. Matriarchy is inner circle shit, based on soft power and influence, and directly influences outer circle (Patriarchy).

Where we fucked up was in giving women equal power politically without depriving them of soft power. Now they are not only the majority voting demographic but they wield enormous soft power influence over men, especially these days with so many cowardly males who derive their self-worth from female approval. The worst part is that women in general pay none of the costs for all this power they accumulated. They don't have to fight their own wars. They do not as a group pay more taxes than they receive in services. They can take men's children and their income (slavery). They can lie and destroy men's lives with near impunity.

Women have to give up the soft power if they want to join us in political and economic realms. They cannot simultaneously have a vote and then play this incessant damsel in distress act to shame men into giving them more gibs and privilege.

[Otern]

Oh the John Kerry tactic.

If we fight our enemies, they win.

I totally get that the republicans want to exploit the situation now, as the democrats made it possible, and they would do the same if they were in power. The fact that it backfired on the democrats do amuse me too.

Not saying you shouldn't fight back, just that maybe push for regulations that make it harder for both parties to fight dirty. Once Kavanaugh is on the supreme court, the republicans should push for candidates needing support from both the democrats and the republicans, that way making it easier for both parties to get a candidate they may both accept.

But they won't. If the midterm elections goes in the republican's favor. It's all about getting the next one there, when Ginsburg kicks it.

And this will backfire on the republicans at some point in the future when the democrats are the ones with a simple majority.

At one point, this state of war needs to end, or it'll just escalate further.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think one of the Parties has ever been women-centric (anti-man even) before. Prohibition was a women thing, and would indicate that women had control of one of the 2 Parties at the time, but women couldn't even vote then so kind of ruins the example.

It was shortly after that they got it. It is no mere coincidence that the 18th Amendment is what it is and the 19th Amendment is what it is.

No, prohibition was first, then suffrage.

Prohibition was driven by women activists. That was all women using soft power to get what they wanted.

[Speaker to Animals]

If people who are tired of Partisans would have supported Trump he would not have to run back to the machine for support. Trump was attacking the main DC cogs on both sides. Remember Cocaine Mitch and low energy Jeb?

When he got to DC, because a lack of public support, he had to bend over and let the machine have its way with him or he was well on his way to being run out of town on fabricated claims that he colluded with Putin.

Trump still represents the most independent president this country has had since Carter.

It's really bullshit, though. People like Kath are feigning "middle ground" because they know their side is indefensible. It's just a dishonest tactic. They know what just happened last week was fucking awful and this woman deserves to go to prison for her lying, but she also knows most of us are having none of the lame defense of the circus. So the next best thing is to pretend she is separated from it all and argue that we are just as bad as the democrats. It's rather ridiculous. What the democrats have done is pure evil and our republic cannot long withstand the trend they have established.

Call me a partisan against hate, discrimination, and u dermining the principles of justice our civilization was founded upon if you want. If that makes me a "partisan", then so be it.

[Martin Hash]

Oh the John Kerry tactic.

If we fight our enemies, they win.

I totally get that the republicans want to exploit the situation now, as the democrats made it possible, and they would do the same if they were in power. The fact that it backfired on the democrats do amuse me too.

Not saying you shouldn't fight back, just that maybe push for regulations that make it harder for both parties to fight dirty. Once Kavanaugh is on the supreme court, the republicans should push for candidates needing support from both the democrats and the republicans, that way making it easier for both parties to get a candidate they may both accept.

But they won't. If the midterm elections goes in the republican's favor. It's all about getting the next one there, when Ginsburg kicks it.

And this will backfire on the republicans at some point in the future when the democrats are the ones with a simple majority.

At one point, this state of war needs to end, or it'll just escalate further.

This is naive beyond comprehension for a long time member of this forum.

[Kath]

This is naive beyond comprehension for a long time member of this forum.

How is a straight-forward assessment about our current state, naive? He's spot on. This is stuff I learned in HS Civics back in the 80's. The party in power takes more power without considering that the other party will use the same power when they get control. Once the other party gets control, they grab even more power without considering that the other party will use the same power when they get control.

Rinse. Repeat. Over and over (and over and over) again.

I think the last time I voted for an R or D was in 2010, because this shit has to stop. I won't support these clowns. They all suck; all 537 of them. The last president to not completely fuck us was George W. Bush, IMO. It's all been crazy-town since.

[Otern]

This is naive beyond comprehension for a long time member of this forum.

It is naive, sure. And no one party can stop doing these kinds of things, if the other party don't stop. Game theory says you should keep on fighting. But this also means it will just escalate to a point where it's impossible to reverse it without some major event happening, like a large scale global war.

I think it's not reached the point where it's impossible to reason across party lines yet, but you're getting closer. There's still hope to reverse the trend, but exactly how that's done, I'm not smart enough to see.

[Speaker to Animals]

It does not work any longer. You need to change up your concern troll strat asap.