he's emboldened the far left even more, his hamfisted approach to rhetoric has given strength to antifa, raised racial tensions, etc.

calling out china is great, dont get me wrong, but he'll make no more long term headway there than he will in stopping the far left. far left and right ideology poisons the center well as a result of polarization he's at the center of, even if u can find a way to excuse him at fault.

in 15 years we'll look back at this presidency in 2 lights as a country, 1 side longingly because to them it will be a disaster after he leaves power and the pendulum swings back, and 1 side as if it was somehow 10x worse than their lives now that their side is in control. but both sides will be worse off as we'll still be deeply divided ideologically with a gridlocked senate.

the scotus is great, im just curious to see where they go from here, and i recognize both that a 5-4 (conservatives to progressive) scotus is the best mix and that its what we need right now. if we experience the same back slide at the scotus that we are in the executive branch (Eos that will be stricken down and a gridlocked congress) it may just mean more decades of inactivity in the grand scheme. but only time will tell on that front.

lastly north korea cant be counted as a win at all, he didnt show that peace was possible, he just proved why hes the first potus to go there and get played. they got propoganda films and gave nothing.

Romney planning on voting, wow, that's huge.

it’s kabuki they have room for 3 defectors so they play musical chairs with who is going to say they wont vote

Like I said, Romney was never gonna pass up on the opportunity to shift the Supreme Court to the right just to stick it to Trump. Say about him whatever you want, but Romney is a conservative at heart (unlike a certain senator from Alaska...)

polling bias doesn't always invalidate poll results entirely, its simply a control on the results.

if a poll shows overwhelming results we can temper them with polling bias, but the results are still noteworthy.

one common thread i see of the underperforming IQ is to see bias as a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. just because biases exist doesnt mean we have to toss it in the fire, understanding biases and controlling for them is what we do in pard. source checks result in tempering of results, pure unadulterated studies are a rare thing, and often theyre on topics benign and uninteresting. its hard to study tough topics with zero bias, just as its hard for people to answer interesting topic questions with zero bias. im sure somewhere is a study of people under hypnosis answering if they'd vote for Trump for a 3rd term if it was legal but the results dont really give us much to discuss. whereas tearing apart poll questions, analyzing methodology, and then seeing what results would look like after that process is fruitful conversation.

"that poll is biased", "that sample is biased", "that source is biased", are great conversation starters, but only fools try to use them to end conversations, fools we see wander in every day by the dozen.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 22 2020 08:45am

Why do you people speak of other politicians(especially statesmen like Romney) as if they're as petty and vindictive as Trump?

The question was whether Romney thought confirming Trump's pick would be improper considering the actions in 2016 against Garland. Obviously he believes in pure power politics... if you control the Senate, you don't have to confirm an opposition president's pick.

I don't get this pejorative focus on "power politics". Senators have a responsibility to their constituents. Their constituents did not want Garland to follow Scalia, the Senate was faithful to their constituents.

Perhaps Obama should have tried to nominate a center-right judge rather than a moderate. Perhaps then the Senate would have evaluated the risk/reward of a Clinton presidency and Dem Senate differently.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt-understand-her-job/

"And after the slandering of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that Republicans should decline to move forward on the nomination for comity’s sake is laughable. Nobody believes for one second that if President Hillary Clinton were struggling toward an uncertain reelection campaign and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer had the chance to confirm a new Supreme Court justice of her choosing that the Democrats would hesitate for a second."

spot on analysis of the current situation re: confirming a new SC justice before the election

I disagree. He's emboldened the far left because he's exposed it and poked at it. Which, I don't think is bad. Short-term, yeah we have more conflict. But they are eating their own and I believe they're losing support. People are moving away from the Democratic party and reevaluating.

I think the Democratic party may implode on itself (obviously just my thoughts because we haven't seen how the election will play out yet). They will have to learn that they will have to return to their moderate roots, if possible, if they want to regain traction.

All of the progressives started gaining momentum under Obama, and it's grown. If it wasn't Donald Trump, it would have been someone else. He's inherited the mess.

Overall, Donald Trump is pretty moderate. It really goes to show how far left, the Democrats have gone by trying to appease these Progressives. Hollywood and Mainstream Media, the Democrats. They're all one.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on Sep 22 2020 11:46am

and yet Biden the moderate is the nominee and just panders to the far left.

i hear a lot of this "theyve moved so far left" talk, with examples of fringe issues or BLM breaking windows in a few liberal towns, but reality doesnt line up with it.