Would you give up a second Obama term to avoid a Trump presidency?

[LaCroix]

My view on Citizens United is and always been that it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate law.  It's not a political disagreement.  I do also happen to think that the political result has been negative but that's not my beef with the legal reasoning.  There are lots of properly reached Supreme Court rulings with crappy consequences.  Eg. I think AEDPA is pretty terrible but the court's rulings on it can be defended as proper application of a badly conceived law.

I recall you arguing that it made corporations people, that it had been a fiction before the opinion but citizens united did something entirely new with the concept. IIRC, it didn't really do anything new except push corporate law to its next logical step. the stance you took seemed influenced by politics / your interpretative style. it's possible I misunderstood your argument at the time.

Not sure why that is unlikely.  Not unknown for panels to get things wrong.  Every year, the Supreme Court reverses panel decisions, sometimes 9-0.

panels can get things wrong, but when two experienced attorney argue over whether an opinion got it right, a twenty second skim seems to suggest the opinion is OK, and the panel's ruling was never overturned, then I'm more inclined to believe disagreement is more caused by simply having a different interpretation.

[The Minsky Moment]

I recall you arguing that it made corporations people, that it had been a fiction before the opinion but citizens united did something entirely new with the concept. IIRC, it didn't really do anything new except push corporate law to its next logical step. the stance you took seemed influenced by politics / your interpretative style. it's possible I misunderstood your argument at the time.

I think so. 
Corporations are artificial persons that are creatures of statute.  The question is what that means and how to think about First Amendment expression involving such artificial persons.  The Supreme Court over the years tried to develop a framework for thinking about these issues, including how to think of them in the specific context of campaign contributions.  CU overruled those cases and blew up that framework.

panels can get things wrong, but when two experienced attorney argue over whether an opinion got it right, a twenty second skim seems to suggest the opinion is OK, and the panel's ruling was never overturned, then I'm more inclined to believe disagreement is more caused by simply having a different interpretation.

The panel ruling was effectively overturned when the Supreme Court decided a similar case against CLS several years later.

But in any case - to repeat yet again - the problem here is not so much the result which I agree could be debated.  By rather her dictum about whether the university policy was contravened by the conduct in the first place.

[grumbler]

Yeah, the fact that spicey has so partaken of the Kool Aid of the Rush Limbaugh wing on the conservatives that he thinks this would even be an interesting question is way more interesting than the actual question.

The difference between Obama and Romney is a sliver compared to the difference between Trump and pretty much anyone, including his fellow Republicans.

But!

What if, in his alternate universe, he was antiSpicy (with a beard) and trolled languish as hard over Romney as he does over Trump, but wouldn't troll languish if Trump got elected?

So, Romney plus troll, or Trump minus troll?  Which is worse?

[dps]

Since this poll question is dumb because what idiot would prefer a Trump presidency over a 2012/2016 Romney victory, I propose a new poll question:

How will Trump's presidency end?

1) Complete full 8 years
2) Complete full 4 years
3) Resign in disgrace sometime in the next 8 years
4) Impeachment and thrown out of office
5) Assassination
6) Jaron ascends the Golden Throne in a coup

I'll guess option #5.

As to the original poll question:  Less Obama and no Trump?  Absolutely.

[jimmy olsen]

It's not that simple, though.  Is Trump bad enough that you cut Obama's reign in half and deny him all his accomplishments in his second term?

Of course he is.

[CountDeMoney]

I think we can all agree that President Obama is one of the best presidents of all time, and that his only fault was not being tough enough on the evil Republicans.  But we also know that Trump is basically Hitler.  So...

If you could jump to an alternate reality where Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the 2012 election and then wins re-election in 2016, keeping Donald Trump out of the presidential picture, would you do that and forgo a glorious second Obama term?

I told you to let the Canucks show you how to do smug.  You're no good at it.  Should've let Xiacob do the poll.  Let the pros be pros.

It's all about courtesy and being magnanimous in victory.  Seriously, for example, look at Yi:  when swathes of people lose their jobs and careers in layoffs so millionaires can simply be more millionairey, he comes like a volcano, right?  I mean, he ejaculates so fucking hard with all that monster free market wage suppressing cock so far up his ass, his prostate lights up like a Kenny Roger's Roasters sign and a single tear rolls down his cheek as he pinches his own nipples--but at least he's courteous enough not to wipe it on the furniture, right?  You don't see him spiking the ball as he passes out gently in a pool of his own jism and shit-stained and pinkish hemorrhoidal blood, do you?  No, you don't.  You should be more like that.  Cum quietly.  Tuck away the tissue.  Roll over and go to sleep. 

Just hand the ball to the ref, dude.  Don't worry, all those filthy whores and dirty niggers you hate are going to be put back in their place soon enough, and as a bonus probably some Jews as well, so don't sweat it.  So act like you've been there before.  Like 1961.  Or 1861.

[11B4V]

Hmm.

Romney never. Him and his goofball religion.

[Ed Anger]

I'm sorta looking forward to Trump now. I'm sorta turned on.

[FunkMonk]

The poll right now is 26 to 1 Lmaoooo

[Habbaku]

It's pretty unsurprising.  I think Languish tilts center-right overall, and opposition to GOP stuff is geared around how retarded and disconnected from reality significant portions of the party have gotten over the last decade.

[Berkut]

Yep.

Languish is about as leftist as CNN.

It only appears to be leftists to those so far to the right that they have zero perspective anymore.

[LaCroix]

I'd say languish* isn't so much leftist as it is blindly rabid against trump, to where trump can literally do nothing right. there's always an angle in a trump story that can fit the perspective that he's hitler

*the majority of the outspoken posters

[Habbaku]

inyouropinionlacroixwhathastrumpdonethatwouldbeconsideredrightinyoureyes?

[Berkut]

WHy do you think that is the case?

I mean, what is it that we are all failing at seeing, such that we have this blind spot with Trump, and have this "rabid" and unthinking critical view of him?

Your claim is that Languish is incapable of thinking and coming to objective conclusions about Trump. Why? What is it about him, as compared to some other politician that has made so many people so rabid?

If Trump really is as bad as most of us think, wouldn't it be perfectly rational for thinking, objective people to act in a manner that looks pretty rabidly anti-Trump?

In other words, it isn't crazy if the guy really is a fucking disaster.

And every single piece of data we have about what he does, is consistent with the view that he is the worst president elect in living memory, and probably the worst in American history.

It isn't irrational to despise a man who is worthy of your despite.

It IS irrational to excuse his actions because you are a partisan hack though, and he is "your guy".

[LaCroix]

berkut, look at how much shit gets thrown at posts that attempt to interpret trump's conduct in a way where he isn't some villainous characiture