Quote :

" Lol okay"

you’re welcome to post evidence to the contrary

I just don’t know why you’re so wedded to the idea that FDR’s threat meant nothing

7/8/2022 4:05:05 PM

Why don't you repost your article when it was called a failure?

7/8/2022 4:16:09 PM

As Michael Parrish writes, "the protracted legislative battle over the Court-packing bill blunted the momentum for additional reforms, divided the New Deal coalition, squandered the political advantage Roosevelt had gained in the 1936 elections, and gave fresh ammunition to those who accused him of dictatorship, tyranny, and fascism. When the dust settled, FDR had suffered a humiliating political defeat at the hands of Chief Justice Hughes and the administration's Congressional opponents."

7/8/2022 4:37:28 PM

Like seriously, just start with Wikipedia and move from there. Court Packing was a failure and the majority of historians say it had zero impact on the cases.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

7/8/2022 4:42:04 PM

from a (sourced) piece on the previous page:

Quote :

"On the other hand, Roosevelt claimed that though he had lost the battle, he had won the war. And in an important sense he had: he had staved off the expected invalidation of the Social Security Act and other laws."

7/8/2022 4:48:34 PM

Wow, imagine that Roosevelt himself said he was right all along.

7/8/2022 4:50:03 PM

is the bolded part a direct quote from him?

7/8/2022 4:53:12 PM

I have offered plenty of evidence to support my claim. You've offered evidence to support my claim.

The evidence you're showing now in undeniably weak.

FDR squandered his political capital with it. Dems took a significant hit in the 1938 midterms because of it. His own party didn't support it and thought it was unconstitutional. He eventually won because he became a wartime president and was able to put up 8 of the 9 justices on the court.

7/8/2022 4:57:10 PM

did he stave off the Supreme Court ruling against Social Security?

was he overwhelmingly re-elected after that?

I’ve posted multiple links supporting the claim that historians have made since it happened, and you linked to a wikipedia page

7/8/2022 5:12:27 PM

Siri, how do citations on wikipedia work?

7/8/2022 5:13:56 PM

I don’t believe that’s an answer to either question that I asked

7/9/2022 2:23:20 AM

Your last link was a former Bernie Speechwriter and was essentially an opinion piece.

The historians I've quoted and used in the wiki are you know, actual historians.

7/9/2022 9:22:25 AM

i really want to understand TGL's stance here. is his argument that FDR's threat worked based entirely on... timing? the simple appearance that the threat worked?

7/9/2022 9:32:04 AM

yes, as I’ve posted multiple pieces that have made that argument

from the Smithsonian piece I linked to on the other page:

Quote :

"It is even harder to account for why Roberts, in his subsequent votes in the Wagner Act and Social Security cases, supported such a vast extension of federal power—but the pressure exerted by the court-packing bill may very likely have been influential."

7/9/2022 10:14:20 AM

may very likely? Such certainty.

Also noting that article is the one that called FDR's gambit a failure that cost him.

7/9/2022 10:29:57 AM

the genesis of all of this was pointing out that when pressed with a radical SCOTUS, FDR took action by threatening to reform the court, and staved off the court striking down Social Security and other New Deal programs

which is why Biden needs to do something other than putting his head down and accepting the results of a radical SCOTUS

7/9/2022 10:42:02 AM

And there isn't great evidence to support that, the two most recent pieces you've presented call it a failure and the other is written by a Bernie speech writer.

I've provided quotes from accomplished historians who state that FDR's threat wasn't what saved it and hurt him and the democratic party more than it helped.

Literally the only thing you're arguing is 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.

7/9/2022 10:51:46 AM

"These facts make it evident that no action taken by the President in the interim had any causal relation to my action in the Parrish case."

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7458&context=penn_law_review

Discusses the timing of the Parrish case and when the initial vote was done from the Justices themselves. And again, you keep arguing social security, which was not a close case (7-2) yet it was the Parrish case (minimum wage) which was the one where Roberts seemingly had a change of heart due to FDR's threat (which was not the case as evidenced by timing and historical opinion)

7/9/2022 10:58:48 AM

Oh, nevermind, I see tgl already admitted his argument is purely post hoc

Queston: i really want to understand TGL's stance here. is his argument that FDR's threat worked based entirely on... timing? the simple appearance that the threat worked?

tgl3: yes, as I’ve posted multiple pieces that have made that argument


Thanks tgl3 for admitting that's all you have. We can now move on from this.

7/9/2022 11:15:25 AM

the “failure” that you keep bringing up is the court packing bill not passing, which has never been up for argument

7/9/2022 11:23:40 AM

Lol, I've never said that, the articles I've shared pointed to other consequences.

You've already admitted your argument is purely fallacy so why even keep talking about it.

[Edited on July 9, 2022 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Good day]

7/9/2022 1:38:04 PM

the parrish case is a great example of why TGL is dumb. people like him often bring up how its an example of the courts "about face" thanks to FDR's threat.

however, as we learned recently from the supreme court leak example, decisions are often made a long time before they are public. in this case the courts "sudden reversal" happened months before FDR's announcement.

but simpletons like TGL can only process very easy arguments, one at a time.

[Edited on July 9, 2022 at 2:33 PM. Reason : oops, sorry behe, credit due]

7/9/2022 2:29:32 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/07/14/manchin-climate-tax-bbb/

Will Trump or DeSantis be our president for the next 20 years?

7/15/2022 12:58:54 AM

https://www.commonsense.news/p/why-the-democrats-are-funding-my
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/27/jan-6-committee-democrat-meddling-gop-primaries

democracy is on the ballot!

[Edited on August 1, 2022 at 12:17 PM. Reason : another article]

8/1/2022 11:55:50 AM

What is your take here? What are you stating as wrong/inappropriate?

8/1/2022 3:41:38 PM

Democrats (rightly) will sound alarm bells about the more extreme GOP candidates being a dangerous threat to democracy, but then will spend time & money boosting those same candidates in the GOP primaries hoping that it'll give them an easier matchup in the general. They're playing with fire, and I'd rather they stay out of GOP races and focus on promoting their own candidates to make them more appealing in the general regardless of who the other candidates on the ballot are.

[Edited on August 1, 2022 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2022 4:26:56 PM

Clearly Dems should be propping up Libertarian candidates instead

8/1/2022 6:06:38 PM

Yes, they're playing with fire and my risk tolerance isn't high enough where I'd make the same calls, but is there a take here for the lesser of evils?

They argue that reducing the scale of these extremists in congress weakens their overall voice and thus places the system in a more democracy-friendly and less extreme state.

8/2/2022 10:03:24 AM

Does boosting extremists in primarys reduce the scale of extremists? Maybe i misunderstand

8/2/2022 11:13:16 AM

If the extremist lose as a result, and then fade out of the limelight during the next two years as a result, yes. If they lose as a result, and don't get constant free air time on TV to spout their nonsense or build a coalition of like-minded-exteremists, then yes.

8/2/2022 3:43:34 PM

When you say "extremist" do you mean either GOP candidate or do mean the further right of the two?

If the former, I guess we'll see if the gamble is worth, generally you don't bet something you can't afford to lose though.

If you mean the latter I think you are off. The funding actions are explicitly increasing the chances of the far right candidate winning, not decreasing them.

8/2/2022 6:21:32 PM

I’m old enough to remember dems voting for Trump in open primaries in 2016 because he was too extreme to win the general election

8/2/2022 6:48:48 PM

http://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1554665033971417088

Quote :

"We'll never know, but it's possible last-minute DCCC meddling in #MI03 actually backfired by making it clear to GOP primary voters which R Dems preferred to face in November (Gibbs would have been an underdog in this Biden +8 seat)."

8/2/2022 11:12:08 PM

^3 I actually mean both.

The play is that the less extreme republican candidate loses because of the boost given to the more extreme candidate. The more extreme candidate moves to the general, where they lose, because independents and moderate conservatives are way less inclined to vote for election deniers. So both stay out of office.

8/3/2022 8:56:51 AM

I think you've answered my question but the far right candidate definitely now has a HIGHER chance to get into office. The two ideas conflict.

Just cross my fingers that the gamble works out

8/3/2022 12:45:31 PM

I 100% agree that the gamble exceeds my risk tolerance.

8/3/2022 1:10:36 PM

Credibility++

8/7/2022 4:40:49 PM

Glad they got something passed. Republicans managed to scrap the $35 insulin cap. That shit needs to be blasted in every single ad

8/7/2022 6:02:11 PM

What was their supposed justification for that other than pharma lobby influence?

8/7/2022 6:10:48 PM

^i don’t know, some bs about procedural manipulation.

I did see that Cheri Beasley put out an ad highlighting Ted Budds vote against capping insulin price, so that’s good.

8/10/2022 8:55:02 PM

I like her ads so far.

8/10/2022 10:12:41 PM

I don't care for her daily texts though....

8/11/2022 9:28:24 AM

I really wish contributing to a campaign or donating to a charity didn't immediately open you to every possible type of spam, quite the splinter

8/11/2022 10:35:11 AM

That's why I don't contribute.

8/11/2022 10:42:55 AM

A few months ago all I did was visit a GOP campaign fundraising site just to take a first hand look at some of the shady practices they used (like automatically setting a contribution as a monthly donation) and I've been swamped with GOP fundraising emails ever since.

8/11/2022 8:28:41 PM

Did you use your real email?

8/11/2022 9:11:33 PM

I didn't use my email at all, I just visited the page. I'm assuming some kind of spyware or something was able to extract an email address simply from my visit; I really don't know.

8/11/2022 9:35:48 PM

Quote :

"The play is that the less extreme republican candidate loses because of the boost given to the more extreme candidate. The more extreme candidate moves to the general, where they lose, because independents and moderate conservatives are way less inclined to vote for election deniers. So both stay out of office. "

Playing that game when you're just talking about an extremist in the sense of policy is one thing. When you're talking about support for an authoritarian, for contempt for rule of law, splintering society by eschewing the foundation of the most simple facts...that's different.

If they're genuinely supporting an existential threat to America, you are wrong for helping them to win anything...and if they aren't really that (although I agree that they are), they it's wrong to paint them with overblown language.

8/11/2022 10:59:06 PM

Passed the IRA

Credibility++

8/16/2022 4:46:14 PM

Quote :

"Democrats (rightly) will sound alarm bells about the more extreme GOP candidates being a dangerous threat to democracy, but then will spend time & money boosting those same candidates in the GOP primaries hoping that it'll give them an easier matchup in the general. They're playing with fire, and I'd rather they stay out of GOP races and focus on promoting their own candidates to make them more appealing in the general regardless of who the other candidates on the ballot are."

This strategy did make me feel a little uneasy as well, but it ended up working 100% this time. Every single Republican that got support from the democrats and won their primary, lost in the general.

11/9/2022 9:23:37 AM