***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Most people who purchase these vehicles do need them though.
That's the point though

They should get a smaller car if they don't need the space

If you don't need a car, don't get one, if you do get the smallest one that will serve the purpose you need it for

Also, most SUVs and trucks have electric/plug-in models that are gearing up for the inevitable future.

Cool, that doesn't solve the problem in the near term, that doesn't get rid of the safety issue for pedestrians

At the minimum, I think there needs to be a special license for people to own cars over a certain size
 
Last edited:
Libs want to strip me of everything that makes a true american. I won't go out without a fight though

0c904adceb4d65500fc8cba5425170c0.jpg



ap_19113862651907-h_2019.jpg
 
Look, Rusty, we live in America. It is BIG. We need BIG cars. Is that so hard to understand?

So we also need lots of parking. Because we need to drive to everything, because it's so far apart, because we have to fit in all the parking lots. And we need BIG roads to move all our giant trucks between these parking lots that are 10% occupied on average. Because who the hell would walk when you are under threat of being run over by me can drive?

Sure, most cars are only transporting one person at a time, but what if I need to move a family or a fridge? Stop taking up my car lane with your weenie little bike before I run you over get mad and roll down my window and say something mean.

Look, this is just the way things are because of 80 years of purposefully building everything around cars and indoctrinating the country into car dependence because it's a big country and I have a fridge to move.
 
Had some ******* in a massive pickup tailgating me recently while I was doing 80. ****ing menaces.

The worst is when it’s snowing up here in New York and the pickups think they are invincible and speeding in snow and icy mix. Then you let them pass and a few miles up you see them on the side of the road. AWD doesn’t mean you are invincible.
 
Nah. Maybe you believe you do, but your argument is unconvincing to me, by any measure.



This hold section is wild.

Are you really in here claiming that the Biden Administration goofed by not using another legal argument?

Your plan would still end up in front of a conservative-controlled Supreme Court

So many journalists that follow the court, liberal ones, are saying the plain truth.

Whatever legal argument they came up with, justices can find a BS argument to kill it.

Change legal argument doesn't remove the main roadblock

There are options that require Congress.

It is a cope and wishful thinking to act like Biden has all the power he needs, and simply chooses not to exercise it. He had limited power to pause certain loans and the Department of Ed. change course because it would have given conservatives a strong legal argument against his plan. No matter if he used the Heroes Act or the Higher Education Act.

Your argument comes off as if you are mad Biden won't act like an authoritarian. I get you are angry but what you are suggesting here are some reaches


Democrats should pack the court, for many reasons

But the plain truth of the matter is that even if Biden did support it, there simply are not the votes right now. Not enough to save the executive order.

It is a reality people have to come to terms with
Bro... Was FDR authoritarian? He'll was LBJ authoritarian? No but they both had a much more antagonistic approach to Republicans and we're willing to push **** through and twist arms to get what they wanted for the benefit of their constituents. Even if the Republicans dragged this issue to the Supreme Court 10 times out of 10 you forced those ****s to do it by pushing the issue and making them own up to their partisan ********.

Anyhow the example I gave regardless feels like a miscalculation by Biden. If nothing they does matters do everything. At the end of the day Biden and the Dems are going to take L’s on this because they aren't fighting for it tooth and nail.

View attachment 3100086

Also, I think we fundamentally we agree democrats need to broach adding seats to the Supreme Court. It's a topic that should be discussed openly not because the Republicans have control, but how they got control and the character of the clowns they put there. I honestly think it could be a issue that could increase turnout if they run on the SC being corrupt.

I have long held the opinion Democrats need to be mean with the Republicans, and consistently put them in position of openly being Ghouls. The SC is a great target for that because look at who is on there and how they got put there
 
Last edited:
Bro... Was FDR authoritarian? He'll was LBJ authoritarian? No but they both had a much more antagonistic approach to Republicans and we're willing to push **** through and twist arms to get what they wanted for the benefit of their constituents. Even if the Republicans dragged this issue to the Supreme Court 10 times out of 10 you forced those ****s to do it by pushing the issue and making them own up to their partisan bull****.

Anyhow the example I gave regardless feels like a miscalculation by Biden. If nothing they does matters do everything.

Also, I think we fundamentally we agree democrats need to broach adding seats to the Supreme Court. It's a topic that should be discussed not because the Republicans have control, but how they got control and the character of the clowns they put there.

I have long held the opinion Democrats need to be mean with the Republicans, and consistently put them in position of openly being Ghouls.
FDR and LBJ had much bigger majorities than Biden has. LBJ was president at a time of historically low partisanship, and a liberal Supreme Court. They didn't just get what they wanted by being "tough". They had the votes too.

FDR faced a right wing court, wanted to pack the court, publicized this plan openly, but gave up on those plans because he didn't have the votes. Some justices eventually retired, but parts of the New Deal were blocked by the Supreme Court too.

I simply can't rock with a position that ignores political reality and core argument is that a change in political tactics is all that is need to bring about large scale change.

That is a cope.
 
Last edited:
When Medicare was passed, the Dems had 68 Senators.

After the election of 1964 was over, Medicare passing was a lock because LBJ's people polled Dem Senators to see if they had the votes. They stopped then they got 54 commitments and figured that was enough because they won't be a filibuster to stop it.

Only 57 Dems voted for the passage of Medicare, short of the 60 one would think they would need to beat a filibuster.

Well that didn't matter, 13 Republicans voted for it as well. Which was about 40% of their caucus

Medicare passed with 70 Senate votes.

Today, most Republicans what to cut Medicare. The Dems have only 51 Senators. And the filibuster is deployed routinely.

That is the difference between LBJ and Joe Biden's situations

Not lack of toughness
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom