We're getting away from the main point.

non-ideological judgement is impossible because "impartially" applying for example, textualism is still ideological, because the choice to use textualism vs any other method is ideological.

Before Super Tuesday in 2019, Bernie was the forerunner despite the DNC's best efforts.

So every conservative democrat dropped out and endorsed Biden while the candidate who shared many of Bernie's policies split the progressive vote (ensuring none of the policies the former Reagan campaigner was running on would actually be implemented).

liberals tend to favour fairness of outcome

You're confusing liberals and socialists. Here's Liberalism: A counter-history, which examines the history and evolution of liberalism. It contextualizes both the historical promotion of political rights and seeming contradictions like their removal under liberalism.

When you go by policy, he would have trounced Trump.

People want free healthcare, people want less war, people want to know their kids will get just as good of an education as the kids of rich people.

Then again, he'd have had the media aligned against him, so maybe they would have convinced the people it's good when you have to put off medical treatments for months so you get them all in a year where you meet your deductible

Did you mean to reply to a different thread?

it still wasn’t three years.

Oh no it was closer to 2.5 years than 3.5 years!

Come on, you know this doesn't refute my point.

Telling them to “fuck off” is meaningless nonsense.

The SCOTUS has no means to enforce its decisions. It knows this and has historically kowtowed to the executive when faced with its own marginalization.

The president literally can just ignore them, as Trump did when they made a ruling he didn't like such as DACA. There's some other precedents: https://revealnews.org/blog/a-brief-history-of-presidents-telling-so-called-judges-to-get-lost/

He took an action that took 3 years to complete instead of ending it on day one and telling the courts to fuck off.

That's keeping it in place for 3 years.

This isn't misinformation, this is you being intentionally dense.

It doesn't matter if his excuse was some court he can just ignore and face no consequences asked him to keep it in place or if did it on a whim, he had the power to change it, he didn't use it. It was in place for like 3 and a half years.

You're not calling out misinformation, you're quibbling.

Nobody is talking about the Muslim ban, we're talking about the more recent attempt to close the mexican border.

But it's irrelevant, you're still missing the point.

My point is that Biden's unpopular actions decrease how many people will vote for him. This is how Biden ensures Trump will come to power.

Trump’s Title 42 and Muslim ban were far worse.

Biden waited 3.5 years to end title 42 and tried to close the border. He has deported more people than Trump.

POTUS has no reasonable control over grocery store prices

He literally does though. But there's a million other things he could have done when he had control. Instead we just get excuses about how powerless the party controlling both houses and the presidency was because of Manchin or the parliamentarian or the SCOTUS or some rules the dems set for themselves or norms or whatever.

There's no point in quibbling about whether Biden was less bad than trump, these actions decrease how many people will vote for him. Implementing policy that makes you lose the election is refusing to stand in republican's way.

We've been saying from day one, that if Biden doesn't move to the left and use every tool at his disposal to improve people's material conditions, Trump's going to win in 2024.

Biden didn't just not go left, he tried to outflank the republicans from the right by facilitating genocide, ending covid protections, and passing the most draconian border bill since like the 40s.

This is the closest thing he could have done to handing Trump the presidency, short of appointing him VP and stepping down.

Yall need to learn some history.

The liberal SDP split with the communists, supporting "centrist" Hindenburg in the name of unity.

The communists campaigned on "A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler is a vote for war"

Hindenburg won the election, getting more votes than either the communist or fascist candidates.

Hindenburg, the liberal candidate, then proceeded to make Hitler the chancellor and staff positions of power with nazis while purging the government of communists.

The nazis then barely had to do anything to assert complete control.

The nazis didn't get in power because communists stayed home, they got into power because the liberals would rather work with fascists than communists.

Well in 2024, they'll blame us instead of the guy who did the things that made him unelectable, but until 2027 primary or so, a lot of them will pretend to want the same things we want. Then when primary season comes, we're back to 2016/2020 "actually we need to appeal to <demographic that hates healthcare and loves tax cuts for billionaires>".

cmon do you really believe that the US had nothing to do with the 2014 color revolution or the government that formed after? I mean you can just google news articles from the time, even western news sources were reporting on how the US and EU were involved in the creation and makeup of the new government.

This was before Zelenski won on a platform of peace, and then failed to get the right-wing militias under control.

It’s Ukraines fight. It’s up to Ukraine to decide to forfeit the fight or to keep fighting.

It was laughably corrupt before the war, and since it's literally suspended elections. It's a war between Russia and Ukraine's ruling classes, the people only pay the price.

Russia should not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

Sure, but Russia's government doesn't pretend to represent you or me. The US government does. We could have also avoided this by not doing a coup in Ukraine and putting a hostile government right on Russia's border.

The US is not supplying Ukraine with weapons because they have any interest in the well-being of the people in Ukraine. They are supplying the weapons to extend a war as long as possible to weaken Russia, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Ukrainians and millions displaced.

This is infinitely worse for the people living there than if Russia won a quick victory or if we'd taken literally any off-ramp in the last decade.

OK, but sending weapons to either of these places is bad, both for the people whose wealth is being wasted to blow up people on the other side of the world, mostly civilians (almost entirely civilians in Israel's case) and the people getting blown up

And we know if they gave into the demands of social justice warriors, we'd have to live in a more just society!

How awful.

"I don't like the butcher of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria's vibes" is a bit of an understatement.

I can only attribute the fact that we didn't go to war with Iran after Iran's response to blowing up the guy who beat ISIS while he was on a peace mission to historical coincidence, since it definitely wasn't Trump's character, but 0% chance Hillary would have called off the attack at the last minute.

If Hillary had won, we'd have started a war with Iran the year Covid was starting. And then maybe had Trump in 2020 instead of 2016

Edit: Anyone downvoting me wanna say why they think the person who was so proud of facilitating the brutal murder of Qaddafi would have pulled back from the brink of war?

Obviously they were raised by owls and speak an owl language.