In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 26 2015 09:42 farvacola wrote: Anyways, check this out y'all. Fuck it Obama is pretty damn smooth these days. Here's a link to an AP video. Obama silences heckler.
Gonna have to side with the heckler on this one. I didn't find that cool at all. I'm against his deportation policies and it's not "his" house- it's the people's house.
Actually, the people's house is Congress, if you wanna get specific. I mean, yes, they are all elected by the people, but the executive is given a greater degree of independent power than congress but less than the judiciary. And the judiciary is most certainly not by the people lol.
On June 26 2015 09:51 farvacola wrote: Actually, the people's house is Congress, if you wanna get specific. I mean, yes, they are all elected by the people, but the executive is given a greater degree of independent power than congress but less than the judiciary. And the judiciary is most certainly not by the people lol.
I'm still curious for clarity of what the issue is?
Is this for real?
You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road.
The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that.
If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into.
But you started by saying
Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up.
The question was, what about it specifically upsets you and/or other conservatives (whichever you feel comfortable speaking for)?
As for Hillary, It would be something like the Uranium dealing. If she allowed these sales to go through due to donations to her foundation, she would clearly be in the wrong. That is quite literally "something for something." But that's in the weeds. I haven't followed it closely so I don't want to comment too much.
Really the Uranium...? So it doesn't seem like there is even a reason for those people like you to be angry about the Hillary part at all? Or if there is you're not sure why yet?
The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.
On June 26 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote: [ I mean, when their arguments are straight up garbage in line with one made by Glen Fucking Beck, what do you expect me to do? I don't' get in rational arguments about Peta either. I posted a response from Ginsburg with a direct quote from her addressing it. You don't even need to read the parts from Slate if they bother you so much.
And its not my fault you were not alive or paying attention during the population scare, but it was a real thing. People were concerned we were going to run out of food. It was a real thing so much so that countries like China passed laws about how many children people could have.
@kzivatch- Could we not invoke the ol' Cognitive Dissonance every post? It does get a bit tiresome.
Don't post out-of-context quotes to distort what she was saying if you don't want to get called out on it.
On June 26 2015 05:32 cLutZ wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:35 kwizach wrote:
On June 26 2015 04:18 Jerubaal wrote: [quote]
I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to
The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so?
It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable.
And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want.
The "we" was clearly not her own views, which is obvious when the quote is not taken out-of-context. If you can't see that, perhaps you should start wondering whether you have conservative blinders on.
Please, do show us where else she is supposed to have been arguing in favor of eugenics.
I would think he was more talking about you can trace her judicial roots, to Oliver Wendell Holmes who notably dissented in Lochner, but also was the major voice in Buck v. Bell. He is one of the leading critics of originalism, and of attacks on "economic rights" that belong to individuals.
Is any of this supposed to be evidence that she favors eugenics?
No, just bringing context to :
On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote:
Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her.
She probably doesn't personally favor eugenics, just her judicial ideology is an offshoot of it. Like dogs and wolves.
Um isn't the second part the genetic fallacy? I mean your attacking her because of what some people believed who founded an ideology that doesn't have much in common with its current iteration today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Perhaps, I'm mobile and not very versed in that fallacy. There are two things I think may disqualify that fallacy: 1. "Progressive" jurists and legal scholars continue to cite him favorably while hiding/ignoring the worst opinions; 2. They still use the same basic principles, just have an exception in the algorithm (for lack of a better word) that kicks out eugenics.
You clearly have no idea how thinkers like RBG actually apply their reasoning or else you'd never even consider using the word "algorithm." Though your attempt at boiling down a criticism, one that would necessarily be extensive in order to float, into 2 single sentences is a fun practice in polemic sloganeering, so thanks for that. It's almost as funny as Jerubaal's suggestion that RBG is the legal reincarnation of Margaret Sanger. Where's Harry Turtledove, he should be taking notes.
Either you don't know what the word algorithm means, or you think it would be a compliment to her. Neither makes your post a very good defense of RBG.
You got it, I don't know what the word algorithm means. That was the chink in my armor, and you found it. Shucks.
Anyways, check this out y'all. Fuck it Obama is pretty damn smooth these days. Here's a link to an AP video. Obama silences heckler.
Algorithm, decision-making process either way, you haven't substantially defended her from the allegation. Or, you have said her decisions are just arbitrary and involve no reasoning (not true IMO), which is not a real defense.
I'm still curious for clarity of what the issue is?
Is this for real?
You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road.
The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that.
If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into.
But you started by saying
Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up.
The question was, what about it specifically upsets you and/or other conservatives (whichever you feel comfortable speaking for)?
As for Hillary, It would be something like the Uranium dealing. If she allowed these sales to go through due to donations to her foundation, she would clearly be in the wrong. That is quite literally "something for something." But that's in the weeds. I haven't followed it closely so I don't want to comment too much.
Really the Uranium...? So it doesn't seem like there is even a reason for those people like you to be angry about the Hillary part at all? Or if there is you're not sure why yet?
The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.
I'm still curious for clarity of what the issue is?
Is this for real?
You already dismissed any distinctions on quid pro quo which is a lot of what this is about, so I don't see the reason for going down this road.
The other issue is free speech, but then we go down Citizens United AGAIN, and I'm not doing that.
If you want specifics on what Hillary may have done, you can find them yourself. There are federal laws that apply to civil servants and administration officials, and if she violated those laws it should be looked into.
But you started by saying
Seems to me one either believes money can influence politicians to say and do certain things or it can't. Seems like total bullshit to say it only corrupts the other side.
which I said was BS, no one says money doesn't matter. That's the glaring issue I wanted to resolve. I don't care for your get-into-the-weeds follow up.
The question was, what about it specifically upsets you and/or other conservatives (whichever you feel comfortable speaking for)?
As for Hillary, It would be something like the Uranium dealing. If she allowed these sales to go through due to donations to her foundation, she would clearly be in the wrong. That is quite literally "something for something." But that's in the weeds. I haven't followed it closely so I don't want to comment too much.
Really the Uranium...? So it doesn't seem like there is even a reason for those people like you to be angry about the Hillary part at all? Or if there is you're not sure why yet?
The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), once considered a long shot for president, has been gaining in recent polls in New Hampshire, a key primary state, and may present a serious challenge to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
A CNN/WMUR poll released Thursday shows that Sanders is just 8 percentage points behind Clinton. Among Democratic primary voters surveyed, 45 percent said that Sanders "cares the most about people like you," while 24 percent said the same about Clinton. When asked which Democratic candidate "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself," 41 percent said Sanders, and 30 percent said Clinton.
The results are consistent with other recent polling in New Hampshire. Two polls last week had Sanders within 10 points of Clinton's lead, suggesting that Clinton, the presumptive favorite, may be vulnerable in the Granite State.
It helps that Sanders is from Vermont, New Hampshire's neighbor. He also has benefited from a post-announcement bump. Sanders officially kicked off his campaign with a boisterous rally in Vermont at the end of May. He has drawn large crowds over the last few weeks at campaign events in key primary states, including New Hampshire, as well as Iowa and Nevada.
With progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not running for president, Sanders has consolidated support among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), once considered a long shot for president, has been gaining in recent polls in New Hampshire, a key primary state, and may present a serious challenge to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
A CNN/WMUR poll released Thursday shows that Sanders is just 8 percentage points behind Clinton. Among Democratic primary voters surveyed, 45 percent said that Sanders "cares the most about people like you," while 24 percent said the same about Clinton. When asked which Democratic candidate "best represents the values of Democrats like yourself," 41 percent said Sanders, and 30 percent said Clinton.
The results are consistent with other recent polling in New Hampshire. Two polls last week had Sanders within 10 points of Clinton's lead, suggesting that Clinton, the presumptive favorite, may be vulnerable in the Granite State.
It helps that Sanders is from Vermont, New Hampshire's neighbor. He also has benefited from a post-announcement bump. Sanders officially kicked off his campaign with a boisterous rally in Vermont at the end of May. He has drawn large crowds over the last few weeks at campaign events in key primary states, including New Hampshire, as well as Iowa and Nevada.
With progressive icon Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not running for president, Sanders has consolidated support among the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Bernie's Colorado crowd was HUGE, even if the media largely ignored it. People would be surprised to find out who they agree with if they have the courage to find out
It's not perfect but it's not too bad either. Probably more accurate than if you let the people who can't ID the VP make their own determination lol. (sorry Jill didn't make the cut)
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi vowed Thursday that liberals will carry their trade fight into the ongoing talks over a trans-Pacific deal at the top of President Obama's legislative wish-list.
The California Democrat said this week's passage of fast-track legislation, a key part of Obama's trade agenda, is just one setback in the much larger debate over the emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mammoth deal with Japan, Vietnam and nine other Pacific-Rim countries that would affect as much as 40 percent of the world economy.
"House Democrats have been united in our concern about the impact on American workers and their paychecks," Pelosi said during a press briefing in the Capitol. "The Senate's final passage of the trade-promotion authority ends one phase, but it is not final. The fight will continue. The phase is over, but the fight is not."
Passage of the trade-promotion authority (TPA) bill diminishes the already limited negotiating power of the minority Democrats. But Pelosi said the Democrats' leverage resides in their ability to sway public opinion as details of the still-unreleased TPP emerge.
"We will be shining a bright light, [a] clear focus on what is going on in the TPP," she said. "The American people expect and deserve to see what is in that bill before their representatives vote for it."
Rep. Sandy Levin (Mich.), senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee who has raised a laundry list of objections to the TPP, is promoting a similar strategy.
Levin said concerns he's been raising with administration officials for months on issues as diverse as pharmaceutical policy, conflict-settlement rules and workers rights in Vietnam and Mexico have gone largely ignored. He suggested public pressure is the Democrats' best chance of influencing the debate.
"At this point, on all of these key issues, we are not sure of what the outcome will be, and we're determined to impact the outcome," Levin said. "How do we do it? By talking more and more publicly about this.
"We're going to use every possible means to try to get it on the right track," he added.
House Democrats this week suffered a resounding defeat in the trade debate when the Senate sent TPA legislation, known as fast-track, to Obama's desk. Fast-track is seen as a vital step in the president's bid to finalize the trans-Pacific deal.
Liberal Democrats in both chambers have broken with Obama in blasting the emerging TPP deal as lacking sufficient protections for the environment, food safety, workers rights overseas, and jobs and wages at home, among other concerns. But passage of the TPA puts those critics at a distinct disadvantage, as it steals Congress's powers to amend or filibuster Obama's trade deals.
Pelosi said she trusts the administration officials finalizing the TPP.
"We share their values," she said.
But asked if she has confidence that the White House will be amenable to the Democrats' many concerns, Pelosi's response carried hints of doubt. Instead, she suggested public sentiment would hold more influence on the negotiations than Democrats would.
"Let's just be very hopeful," she said. "I think the more public support we have for our position the more leverage we will have, so we will be taking it to the public."
Levin said the overwhelming Democratic opposition to a workers aid bill earlier in the month –– a proxy vote in a bid to derail fast-track –– is an indication that the administration has a long way to go to convince Democrats that the TPP is a new breed of trade deal that won't harm U.S. jobs.
"We're going to keep pursuing them, because this administration will have the challenge: can they put together a TPP that would have broad Democratic support instead of one sixth or seventh of our caucus?" Levin said.
Victory for gays and defeat for people who care too much about other people's business. The only argument against the ruling I can see as being valid is that States have the right to define marriage.
In a landmark opinion, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, handing gay rights advocates their biggest victory yet.
The 5-4 ruling had Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority, with the four liberal justices. Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent.
Victory for gays and defeat for people who care too much about other people's business.
Just saw the news on Reddit. What a huge decision for the LGBT community. Kind of shocked about the decision, but I think it's the right move. It doesn't seem fair to deny such a huge amount of people those kinds of rights. Gigantic step in the right direction imo.