EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3618
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:31 KwarK wrote: Do you think the coming election is a 50/50? if you think a Democratic victory considerably more likely (and I do) then the Dems are sacrificing more in the compromise (they're losing a big chance of appointing zombie Marx whereas the Republicans are losing only the small chance of their planned zombie Ayn Rand nomination). From what I understand Garland is a respectable compromise candidate that both parties could live with. Sure, he's not who the Republicans would have chosen but in order to choose they first need to get Trump in the White House. I'd rate it 55/45 Dems chance of winning. But you have to understand the only thing that is "good" about Garland for Republicans is that he is 62. Yes he is very qualified, but much like Hillary who is very Qualified, whatever that means, but in the modern era it is as much about what you do when you are checking boxes on your resume as what boxes you have checked. The Supreme Court isn't like college admissions where that one kid from you high school who was second in the class, played in 3 sports (sucked at all of them), did model UN, honors society president (ran unopposed), etc is "valued". That is Merrick Garland for Republicans. You sigh and say, "okay fine" when that student gets into Harvard, but you know the person who deserved it is the kid who was like 15th, but carried your terrible basketball team to the playoffs and somehow randomly won the state spelling bee. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18826 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On April 16 2016 04:45 cLutZ wrote: I'd rate it 55/45 Dems chance of winning. But you have to understand the only thing that is "good" about Garland for Republicans is that he is 62. Yes he is very qualified, but much like Hillary who is very Qualified, whatever that means, but in the modern era it is as much about what you do when you are checking boxes on your resume as what boxes you have checked. The Supreme Court isn't like college admissions where that one kid from you high school who was second in the class, played in 3 sports (sucked at all of them), did model UN, honors society president (ran unopposed), etc is "valued". That is Merrick Garland for Republicans. You sigh and say, "okay fine" when that student gets into Harvard, but you know the person who deserved it is the kid who was like 15th, but carried your terrible basketball team to the playoffs and somehow randomly won the state spelling bee. bookies have it at roughly 70% for Hillary: fivethirtyeight.com (although a bit outdated since March and Trump was still doing better at that time) That being said, I'm also in the camp of "what Bernie said is correct but it's not something you say" to put it into as few words as possible. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On April 16 2016 05:01 Toadesstern wrote: bookies have it at roughly 70% for Hillary: fivethirtyeight.com I would never have that level of confidence at this date. I still don't know if Trump wins or not, I still don't know if the economy ticks up or down in the summer, etc. Here is kind of a "hyper-liberal" SCOTUS wish list, I've cut and pasted some of it with my responses. It will show why Garland is not really a compromise candidate. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/ Abortion rights. Most obviously, Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion would be secure. Garland will hold the line at likely 20 weeks, anything like a right to late term abortions is a pipedream anyways, one that most Democrats don't even want. Access to the courts.A Court with five or more Democratic appointees is likely to be much more inclined to rule for consumers and employees and their ability to sue in courts. Minor issue. Garland probably is actually a moderate on this issue. He is a "judge's judge, which means decreasing workload is probably in his sights. Affirmative action. Garland will hold the line. Campaign finance. Garland is likely to uphold all regulations and laws of campaign finance. He has almost never struck down a federal law or regulation of any kind. Congressional power. Same as above. Death penalty. Garland would likely keep it. Minor issue to Republicans. Establishment Clause. Minor issue. Garland looks to be a lockstep liberal. First Amendment rights of nonunion members. Abood remains. Union power likely to actually expand under Garland. Second Amendment. Garland is hostile to the 2nd Amendment. Dreaming. The possibility of five or six Democratic justices allows one to imagine what might be done in other areas. Might the Court find a constitutional right to education and conclude that disparities in school funding violate the Constitution? It wont. There are 0 votes for this right now. That is because court mandates of equality of funding a a total disaster. Look at what happened in Kansas City Might the Court find that the racial injustices in the criminal-justice system violate equal protection? Likely only 3 votes for this, maybe right now. Its also an impossiblity from a practical standpoint. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) speech at the New York City Republican gala on Thursday night was met with a cool reception from the crowd, who spoke amongst themselves and milled about as Cruz delivered his campaign stump speech. "I will admit to you, I haven’t built any buildings in New York City," Cruz said at the beginning of his address, drawing some applause, according to Buzzfeed News. But it went downhill from there. As Cruz continued with his speech, his applause lines drew little attention from the New York Republicans at the dinner, according to NBC News. The sound of chatter and cutlery on plates grew louder as Cruz's speech went on, according to Buzzfeed News. People also began wandering the room to chat with acquaintances at other tables. Source | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
That, to me, is the essence of their differences. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
We've been over this so I'm just making my obligatory pro-Clinton comment. EDIT: lol nvm taxes aren;t out yet, I got excited | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:09 ticklishmusic wrote: Oh no, she's fundraising from people who can afford it and raising money for the DNC. Meanwhile Bernie pays a couple hundred grand to go to the Vatican on the campaign dime. We've been over this so I'm just making my obligatory pro-Clinton comment. EDIT: lol nvm taxes aren;t out yet, I got excited Yeah she says she's raising money for other candidates but all evidence points at most of it going right back into her campaign efforts circumventing donation rules. Not to mention there's a dine with the 99 event coinciding with Bernie's trip to the Vatican raising money for him and other progressive candidates. Considering most of Hillary's donors are maxed out and can't legally give money to her, event's like she's holding today are a great way to get more of their money to her campaign efforts. As for Bernie since he has 2x as many donors and has been raising more than Hillary every month this year he would obviously be the better fundraiser (wouldn't have to remove Obama's rules on DNC fundraising, undermining what Democrats say they are running on) for himself and other candidates. Hillary, is at best, a conduit for more influential money from Wall St, Big Pharma, etc... into the Democratic party that Obama specifically tried to prevent. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote: I love how the media has questioned the wisdom/optics of Bernie going to the Vatican to speak about a moral economy but not the wisdom/optics of Hillary leaving NY to have a fundraiser in CA where it costs $33,000 just to get inside, and $350k for prime seating on the same day. That, to me, is the essence of their differences. Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ //Get the money out of politicssss!!! Am I doing it right? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ //Get the money out of politicssss!!! Am I doing it right? uh... people(poor people even.. wow!) gave him that money to speak for them. I don't think how much money is being spent is the issue... it's where it comes from. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich. Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers. Please, continue making this argument. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:31 ticklishmusic wrote: This argument has happened a bajillion times and you've never shown any proof of campaign finance fraud. Dollars are tracked and it's pretty much impossible for a bunch of money to appear in the HFA accounts without knowing where they came from. I told you then, it's not "fraud" because it's legal. The argument isn't about it's legality. Just like her getting the DNC to lift Obama's restrictions isn't "fraud", it's legality isn't the point. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich. Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers. Please, continue making this argument. Since you're arguing with someone else I think I'll just let you do that. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote: The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. She's competing against Republicans. Bernie is down double digits in NY. Whoever wins NY wins the election and there's no 2 ways about that. Sanders continuing to campaign does not mean she is Clinton's rival. Bernie has been somewhat her rival this whole time, more so recently to make sure NY is conclusive. She is competing with the GOP. There's a lot of donor money over there. Just look at the checks Jeb got for even existing. Once the general rolls around, those PACs are going to be extremely necessary. The New York post interview, last night's statement that he'd ask Obama to rescind his nomination, the fact that he still did not give details on any of his plans last night is working against him. He doesn't have the support. He's down 2 million votes. He's not a revolution and he's not going to win. That's why the PAC issue is stupid. It is needed to fight the GOP. Edit: And don't get me wrong, I am glad he ran and he has changed this country permanently, IMO. I think my donation was money well spent. However, New York is essentially winner takes all. With Bernie being down as far as he is, it is not silly for Clinton to be ignoring his challenges. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23224 Posts
On April 16 2016 06:44 Mohdoo wrote: She's competing against Republicans. Bernie is down double digits in NY. Whoever wins NY wins the election and there's no 2 ways about that. Sanders continuing to campaign does not mean she is Clinton's rival. Bernie has been somewhat her rival this whole time, more so recently to make sure NY is conclusive. She is competing with the GOP. There's a lot of donor money over there. Just look at the checks Jeb got for even existing. Once the general rolls around, those PACs are going to be extremely necessary. The New York post interview, last night's statement that he'd ask Obama to rescind his nomination, the fact that he still did not give details on any of his plans last night is working against him. He doesn't have the support. He's down 2 million votes. He's not a revolution and he's not going to win. That's why the PAC issue is stupid. It is needed to fight the GOP. Edit: And don't get me wrong, I am glad he ran and he has changed this country permanently, IMO. I think my donation was money well spent. However, New York is essentially winner takes all. With Bernie being down as far as he is, it is not silly for Clinton to be ignoring his challenges. Does Trump have a superPAC I'm not aware of? EDIT: I also love how the DNC isn't telling people they could have already voted in NY or can vote right now. Yet I'm sure they will be surprised and unprepared for a massive turnout on the 19th that they did little or nothing to prepare for or avoid. I'm sure Hillary supporters will be very skeptical that the long lines and widespread reports of issues are more than merely coincidence and will require a (never going to happen) investigation to prove anything to their satisfaction. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
| ||
| ||
