New England Republican ⚓️

“My politics is like my religion, I never change. I am careful about serving my Lord and voting the Republican ticket.”

@Sir_Paulord @atlanticesque youtu.be/0-Po606ilAY?fe…

@atlanticesque >Republicans under 50 being more sympathetic to Communism than Democrats over 50 What are your guys even doing man @PineTreeGOP

Young democrats being +22 on “Free market economy” and -31 on “Capitalism” is both funny and bleak

The FSB doesn’t want you to know this, but you can enjoy a cup of coffee, a donut, and a local newspaper to make Monday mornings far better.

@atlanticesque @Prolemasses I’ll take it.

The new smoke-filled room: Discord

@_JeanLannes Considering he’s a Roman Catholic? I’m not convinced the Whigs would want him.

Its actually so over in ways it hasn't even been before. The Whigs won. Abolish Britain.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT There’s a difference between political brinksmanship and testing how far you can push the power of the executive branch. It only didn’t come to pass because he ultimately won, which is cold comfort to the likes of me.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT A politician being political....let me clutch my pearls. But even still.....HE DIDN'T PACK THE COURT. As my Dad used to say, you would complain if you were hanged with a new rope.

From its foundation to June, 1934, the National Recovery Agency created “more” law than Congress had in its whole history from 1789. Congress had 2,735 pages of federal statute. The NRA had produced 900 odd codes or supplements in 10,000 pages.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT I don’t quite think I’m impugning motives though. Most historians point to FDR being extremely irritated with the court and desired a means to undercut them. I don’t think he was twirling his mustache like a cartoon villain but his reasons were obviously political.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT That's weak and I would expect a better argument from you. It's allowed, and constitutional but I don't like it so I am going to impugn motives. Facts over feelings.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT If you’re going to conflate previous increases to court membership with what FDR attempted, we may as well end the discussion. There is nothing unconstitutional or illiberal in expanding the court. But it’s doubtlessly illiberal when done for such naked political gain.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT Point me where in the Constitution it's says the SC is limited to 9 justices. I'lll wait. It's now illiberal to do what the Constitution allows? You are doing more damage to your weak argument.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT Just because something is legal does not make it right. Seeking a democratic mandate for illiberalism is not a convincing argument to either of us.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT If Trump tried to do by EO, yes I would. But if proposed legislation that was passed, although I would be vehemently opposed I would have it accept. You hold against FDR for using the democratic process to further his aims and respecting the rule of law. Pick a side.

@MakeUSAVAT @KarlBlaha And what I’m saying is that, were there concerns about their constitutionality, Congress limiting the scope of SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction would be a constitutional means of addressing this.

@PineTreeGOP @KarlBlaha congress did pass the social security legislation and FLSA and they should be constitutional (they were found to be) but I'm talking about a world where they weren't which would be bad.

@MakeUSAVAT @KarlBlaha Talk to Congress. While not a one for one, Ex Parte McCardle is a good place to start when examining SCOTUS authority.

@PineTreeGOP @KarlBlaha sorry but a court that reactionary doesn't deserve to exist.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT The legislative and democratic process do not justify, necessarily, illiberal policies done for political expediency.

@MakeUSAVAT @PineTreeGOP He proposed legislation to increase the number of justices and when there was backlash the legislation was abandoned. So you are criticizing FDR for using the democratic process and when it failed he respected the rule of law and the Court was unchanged. Hardly autocratic.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT This wasn’t some issue quietly opined upon in a West Wing coat room. This was a public display of executive hubris only stopped by public outrage and the court acquiescing. Were Trump to consider this, you would not give him this much deference and would, rightfully, lament it.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT He didn't pack the Court though did he ? So you are criticizing him for something that didn't happen.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT I claim the first New Deal was a net good. The second led to a recession. I also contest how responsible FDR was for the post war boom (this likely comes down to a matter of definitions). But even that aside, these are not small issues. Court packing is not social security!

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT You claim it was a net good and didn't disagree with my assertion that it it ushered in the great period of human prosperity but you demand perfection from FDR and to paraphrase Dennis Miller pick more nits then a father-son lemur team being tracked by a nature show camera crew.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT Criticizing his policy is not a wholesale condemnation of the man nor all the aspects of his presidency. Nor is it an endorsement of international reaction. It’s an observation from a right liberal frame of reference.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT Okay? That doesn’t make it the good or right choice nor does it discredit Willkie’s proposals. You display an undue air of superiority when someone disagrees with your orthodoxy. Criticizing FDR’s authoritarian streak (court packing, AAA, NRA) is important to democracy.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT I don’t have to delude myself. While the first New Deal was probably a net good, the second New Deal was not and I think the Republican platform of 1940 was a far more happy, and realistic, marriage of government and business.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT I don't worship at the alter of the New Deal and Central Planning but delude yourself that the Republican policies on offer at the time would have been more than successful than the New Deal ultimately was.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT So long as you worship at the altar of the New Deal and central planning, with egregious policies like the AAA, we’ll never agree and that’s okay!

@MakeUSAVAT @PineTreeGOP Don't be daft. FDR was so pro Mussolini he went to war with him and conquered Italy. You people and your Alf Landon cosplay are ridiculous at times. FDR defeated fascism and ushered in the middle class and the greatest period of prosperity in human history.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT Compared to other criticisms of the New Deal I’ve read, it’s far more well balanced. Many elements of the New Deal’s centralism was authoritarian, “revisionist” or not.

@PineTreeGOP @MakeUSAVAT Any administration contains multitudes. I am sure there were fellow travelers working in the administration as well. We have all read Amity Shlaes revisionist history of the Depression and we have dismissed it.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT Heck, FDR was prosecuting men like Mellon and Insull on charges only made illegal after the fact. Maybe it’s not fascism per se, but if you’re not alarmed by this behavior because it doesn’t goose step in the streets, we’ll never be able to see eye to eye.

@KarlBlaha @MakeUSAVAT While they weren’t fascists (though many of the Brain Trust admired Mussolini) creating law like this is highly authoritarian. There’s no two ways about it.