Given the fact that Republicans control pretty much everything but the Presidency, a President Sanders would be just fine as long as he stays within constitutional limits(a problem for some socialists if history is any guide).
But the Presidency could use an honest, straightforward guy. I just worry that given how dysfunctional the government is that putting an elderly ideologue in charge with zero executive experience won’t make it any better. We’ll continue to get our personal information stolen by foreign governments, the VA will continue to kill patients, individual agencies will discriminate against political opponents with Sanders none the wiser, and efficiency of pretty much everything else will get worse and worse because Sanders will ask them to do more things with no extra resources, since you can order agencies around with executive orders but you can’t fund their increased workload without Congress.
I never implied that busting constitutional limits was strictly a socialist phenomenon.
As for the Patriot Act, it passed Congress nearly unanimously. Which doesn’t make it constitutional, but it at least isn’t in the same class of lawbreaking as Presidents doing things they can’t do on their own. We do not live in a strongman republic.
5-4 conservative advantage on SCOTUS. We don’t win every case because conservative justices apply the law. Liberal justices just do whatever Democrats want them to do.
What’s your best example? Bush v. Gore where the foul Democrats thought counting the votes might be an appropriate way to settle an election, while the 5 GOP Justices thought alphabetical order (B before G) was a better idea?
LOL. Your claim is essentially tautological – the Republicans control what they control – the House and Senate, and many (but not nearly all) state governments in whole or in part. That’s not “pretty much everything aside from the Presidency”.
Yes, Democrats make hyperbolic claims sometimes about how strong their position is at this time, and how much they will dominate the future due to demographics. A lot of this is exaggeration, hyperbole, and wishful thinking. But so is your “progressives are in a really weak position” stuff. As always, we’ll see – I think the Democrats have a good shot to win the WH and Senate in 2016, and not a very good chance at the House. That’s a reasonable prediction, but I’m not close to being certain about it.
The reasoning behind this response contains (at least) two separate errors: an error of fact, and a fundamental logic fallacy.
The error of fact is the assumption that the four liberal Justices are particularly united. In fact it is well known that Thomas and Scalia vote in lock-step more than any other pair of Justices. As just one example of a liberal Justice voting against the “liberals” consider Van Orden v. Perry, which permitted by a 5-4 vote the State of Texas to retain its display of the Ten Commandments at its State Capitol. With moderate O’Connor voting against Gov. Rick Perry, it was Stephen Breyer whose vote allowed the monument to remain.
But more importantly you commit the logic fallacy of assuming that two arbitrary sides are always equally righteous, and that the more diverse side must therefore be more reasonable. With your reasoning, a debate between 4th-graders and their science teachers would be won by the students: they apply their diverse imaginations while the teachers just follow what scientists write.
The Democrats do have a good shot at winning 2 out of the 3 federal elected branches. State control won’t really be up for grabs until the midterms, as always.
Sanders goes over big on these boards because, by SDMB standards, he’s a moderate. Candidates generally have to veer to the extremes to win primaries, and Sanders does have the advantage because he doesn’t have to do that - he is an extreme leftist (by US standards) already.
I hope very, very much that he gets the nomination, since he would get creamed in the general election and that would be a better outcome than electing another loony Democrat. But I doubt he will.
Your world is very black and white, isn’t it? Personally, I would giive all the justices (except that fucker Alito) the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re applying the law to the best of their ability.
