..... how sick the phony democracy of America really is.
Paul1405,
as phoney as you !

Paul,

GR is still influential in the Labor party, and while he writes for the Australian, he is not constrained by them and much of what he writes about I don't agree with. That he is no longer in parliament means that he is no longer constrained by the party line.

However, that Biden will be 78 if elected for his first term and will be the oldest President ever is not debatable. Neither is the fact that he is on record numerous times fumbling his words and making fundamental errors in way that he didn't 4 years ago.

Good post Josephus...

Ginsberg appears to be another person from immigrant stock who is against British and western institutions such as the Boy Scouts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

"She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and was generally viewed as a moderate judge who was a consensus builder at the time of her nomination.[2][3] She eventually became part of the liberal wing of the Court as the Court shifted to the right over time. Ginsburg was the second woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O'Connor and was the first Jewish woman to serve on the court."

I wouldn't view her as moderate and that seems to have been born out.

Josephus

It seems like Ginsburg qualified to be a secular regressive saint from the list you make. Thank God more and more people are waking up to the secular death cult.

Runner seems NOT to acknowledge that 'the Left', Labor in Aus speak, Liberal in US speak, generally works 'For The Workers', For Unions.
For, not against.
Progressive as against Conservative.
'Worker', as against 'The Boss'.
But, incomprehensibly, is 'For Trump', For the Big Bosses?

And, runner, RBG worked tirelessly 'For Women' and Women's Rights.
So, runner, do you castigate RBG because she fought for women to have control of their destiny, including their bodies as well as their minds?
Can your perception and assessment be so skewed that RBG's support of women's right to determine their reproduction and Family Planning decisions automatically condemn RBG to the garbage-dump of history?

That's tantamount to condemning the Internet and Newspapers because their news content may not always be accurate, and, in any event, their content does not attempt to conform to 'The Good Book' in all their conveyed assumptions and conclusions.
Blinkered, myopic, narrow, and just plain wrong.
You, runner, or 'The World'?

Individual of course plumps for the other team - Lib, Boss, Entrepreneur and Investor, 'For Trump'.
But, for no good identified reason - just 'Because'?

Biden may not be the sharpest tack in the box, but at least he is 'real'

Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrated conclusively that he is suffering from some form of identity dysphoria - he really thinks he is blessed, he is entitled, he is Right, he is Saviour of the World, the 'Second Coming' with brass knobs on.
Messiah Trump.
(Sarah Huckabee Sanders certainly seemed to think so.)

Any day now Trump is likely to have a brain-Farct and will be carted off to the Happy Farm.
Politics is oh so stressful - especially when 'the chips are down' and all those wonderful dreams for Fracking and Space Force and World Domination are relying on you Winning, by any means, any at all.

Trump, whose form of insanity will be studied for generations - in hopes of finding an effective vaccine against it.

God Bless America. (And, keep it far from me.)

Salty wrote:
For, not against.
Progressive as against Conservative.
'Worker', as against 'The Boss'.

The use of the word "progressive" has been puzzling me for some time.
It context seems to be inferring that it means to advance the subject
to a more capable, useful, favorable, advanced, or desirable level.
It seems to be used by the left, and socialist, or even communist
leaning groups as a self tagging label.

Such tagging cannot be universally applied to all left or green
policies, people, groups or political parties.
For instance the greens can no longer connect themselves with the
word "progressive". Perhaps they once could but their policies now
are designed to reduce societies welfare and wealth to a very
significant degree.

That might be my opinion, but many others would have other fields
in mind in which "progressives" have a negative effect.

So, I believe that the Labour party which its supporters define it
as a progressive party are wrongly labeling it as such.
It cannot be an opposite meaning for conservative.
Progressive has to mean to universally advance.