EPTI hope the 4-4 on amnesty will cure my friends on the right of wishful thinking regarding judicial checks on presidential overreach. It's up to a new generation to return, if at all possible, separation of powers to federal governance.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4127
| 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. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I hope the 4-4 on amnesty will cure my friends on the right of wishful thinking regarding judicial checks on presidential overreach. It's up to a new generation to return, if at all possible, separation of powers to federal governance. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On June 25 2016 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote: Some of us don't want to be a part of ClintonCorp even if she pretends she'll accomplish more "moderate" versions of what we want. She represents a relationship between politician and voter that we fundamentally disagree with, most recently demonstrated in the "vote for her or else you're doing nothing" arguments. The demographics are not in either party's favor. The younger demo is overwhelmingly supportive of what Bernie was saying and not just the stuff they may age out of believing, but deeper fundamental aspects of how we do things as a country and on the left within the Dem party. ClintonCorp can ignore us, belittle us, call us "extreme", or kick us out, but none of those end with us supporting ClintonCorp. Clinton spent her whole life building this moment and Trump may or may not be able to take it away, but we (or our ideals) won't be pawns to be sacrificed on the altar of Moo's Goddess so she can win an election. I get that most people's political imagination was killed in it's crib, but not all of us are consigned to things as they are. This has nothing to do with the specific opinions of people or politicians, but the actual actions of people during the election. Hilary's people showed up to vote, Bernie's did not. When Hilary's people were losing states, they simply kept voting. When Bernie's people lost states, they were ready to brand the entire left as a corrupt organization to never be trusted, and then expect for the left to be supportive of them at the same time. Doesn't matter what the political opinion is. When you are a group whose primary action is to tell others that the left cannot be trusted and then don't show up to vote yourself--then you're nothing but a danger to progressivism, a danger to civil rights, and a danger to personal freedoms. And that's even before we put the policy opinions on the table. So yes, I do believe that the Sanders supporters have poisoned the well. They are literally reinforcing and regurgitating the conservative narrative of a corrupt left wing party whose only there to steal your money with their taxes. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, Sanders supporters would be the most anti-progressivism group in the entire US. And often times I am not even sure if the Tea Party is more anti-progressivist than the Sanders Supporters. Bernie himself is okay. I think a lot of his ideas are dumb and wreak of freshman high school idealism. He's about as impressive as most frat boys yelling loudly about how cool their Poli-Sci 101 class was. But overall he is likable, like Bush I'd be willing to have a beer with him. But Bernie's supporters? Fairly dangerous to civil liberties in this country. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
On June 25 2016 06:33 Danglars wrote: I'm reading the Fisher-UT case, and it appears that diversity is now a compelling interest. These Kennedy opinions, man oh man. We take a trip around and around meandering to make the fourteenth amendment defend racial discrimination. To their credit, both Alito and Thomas point this out thoroughly and in detail once you've slogged through the opinion of the court. I hope the 4-4 on amnesty will cure my friends on the right of wishful thinking regarding judicial checks on presidential overreach. It's up to a new generation to return, if at all possible, separation of powers to federal governance. The major issue in Fisher II that Alito alluded to, but Kennedy just flat ignored is that UT-Austin has been deceptive and manipulative throughout the whole process. At best they are incompetent, most likely they are liars. They intentionally crafted the "holistic" process to thwart auditing or studying of its impacts and results (and this is similar around the nation in university admissions), and continually shift the playing field to prevent being locked down on any one theory on what their "compelling interest" actually is. And its all been a disguise for racial balancing. They first had a "critical mass" theory, but then could never explain why that a smaller black population than Hispanic could be a sufficient "critical mas." Then they did classroom-by-classroom studies and justifications, but again their own studies showed that the problem was greater for Asians than for Hispanics. And it goes on, UT was proven to have an even shadier admissions process than anyone could have initially suspected, but the majority bit hook, line, and sinker. Thus, even the most pernicious admissions policies will be approved by circuit courts until the next AA in higher ed case comes to the Court, because of the abject failure of this court to make a choice. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I also wish we could find a way to get the court to have fewer very close rulings, though I can't raelly think how that would be possible. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On June 25 2016 07:47 zlefin wrote: I wish we had a better system in place to avoid 4-4 rulings. It really creates chaos for the lower courts. I also wish we could find a way to get the court to have fewer very close rulings, though I can't raelly think how that would be possible. 4-4 ruling should be limited to a tiny rare window in between nominations. Then congress discovered they get payed and re-elected without actually doing the most basic parts of their job. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 25 2016 07:00 Naracs_Duc wrote: This has nothing to do with the specific opinions of people or politicians, but the actual actions of people during the election. Hilary's people showed up to vote, Bernie's did not. When Hilary's people were losing states, they simply kept voting. When Bernie's people lost states, they were ready to brand the entire left as a corrupt organization to never be trusted, and then expect for the left to be supportive of them at the same time. Doesn't matter what the political opinion is. When you are a group whose primary action is to tell others that the left cannot be trusted and then don't show up to vote yourself--then you're nothing but a danger to progressivism, a danger to civil rights, and a danger to personal freedoms. And that's even before we put the policy opinions on the table. So yes, I do believe that the Sanders supporters have poisoned the well. They are literally reinforcing and regurgitating the conservative narrative of a corrupt left wing party whose only there to steal your money with their taxes. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, Sanders supporters would be the most anti-progressivism group in the entire US. And often times I am not even sure if the Tea Party is more anti-progressivist than the Sanders Supporters. Bernie himself is okay. I think a lot of his ideas are dumb and wreak of freshman high school idealism. He's about as impressive as most frat boys yelling loudly about how cool their Poli-Sci 101 class was. But overall he is likable, like Bush I'd be willing to have a beer with him. But Bernie's supporters? Fairly dangerous to civil liberties in this country. Well, you're not wrong that the young voting base of Bernie Sanders does act in a way that is not very productive to their cause. Hillary Clinton's supporters acted more in line with what actually works, which is why she won despite the fact that she is definitely lacking a particularly good personality and a particularly effective campaign. Can't really agree with your assertion that they are dangerous. Mostly just young, immature, and unwilling to compromise. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On June 25 2016 08:57 SolaR- wrote: Hillary won because of name recognition and super delegates. Let's not kid ourselves. Except she won the popular vote, the delegate vote and the super delegate vote. She did not win because of super delegates. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 25 2016 08:57 SolaR- wrote: Hillary won because of name recognition and super delegates. Let's not kid ourselves. Hillary has a strong establishment base that gives her a lot of voters. It's a pretty textbook case of "The Party Decides" political nominations. While that theory didn't work for Trump, it's pretty much exactly how Clinton was chosen. Still doesn't mean she's a good candidate or well-liked by the general voting population. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19573 Posts
Plus Bernie was an old, white, Ted Cruz of the left. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I mean, the 2008 superdelegate edge for Clinton initially sure didn't pan out. They also allowed the Sanders campaign to push the semi-incoherent narrative that superdelegates are undemocratic but Clinton wouldn't clinch the nomination in pledged delegates alone. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
I feel like the money I donated ended up being a complete waste. The fact that he didn't pivot to remain relevant and a leader is just so sad. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21364 Posts
On June 25 2016 09:32 Mohdoo wrote: And superdelegates could have been gone for good, if bernie was willing to cash in his political capital for an endorsement after Cali was called. But now it is too late and he has essentially no bargaining power. And that's the kind of leader he would have been. He wanted the world, was too stubborn and ignorant to know he couldn't get it, and so now he's got nothing. As has always been the case. There was no chance in hell super delegates were going away with the Republican party showing how easy it is to lose control of your own party. The Republicans wish they had supers so they could have denied Trump. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 25 2016 07:00 Naracs_Duc wrote: This has nothing to do with the specific opinions of people or politicians, but the actual actions of people during the election. Hilary's people showed up to vote, Bernie's did not. When Hilary's people were losing states, they simply kept voting. When Bernie's people lost states, they were ready to brand the entire left as a corrupt organization to never be trusted, and then expect for the left to be supportive of them at the same time. Doesn't matter what the political opinion is. When you are a group whose primary action is to tell others that the left cannot be trusted and then don't show up to vote yourself--then you're nothing but a danger to progressivism, a danger to civil rights, and a danger to personal freedoms. And that's even before we put the policy opinions on the table. So yes, I do believe that the Sanders supporters have poisoned the well. They are literally reinforcing and regurgitating the conservative narrative of a corrupt left wing party whose only there to steal your money with their taxes. If it wasn't for the Tea Party, Sanders supporters would be the most anti-progressivism group in the entire US. And often times I am not even sure if the Tea Party is more anti-progressivist than the Sanders Supporters. Bernie himself is okay. I think a lot of his ideas are dumb and wreak of freshman high school idealism. He's about as impressive as most frat boys yelling loudly about how cool their Poli-Sci 101 class was. But overall he is likable, like Bush I'd be willing to have a beer with him. But Bernie's supporters? Fairly dangerous to civil liberties in this country. I'm not necessarily of an opposing opinion, but I was mainly complaining about my Facebook feed. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 25 2016 09:36 Gorsameth wrote: There was no chance in hell super delegates were going away with the Republican party showing how easy it is to lose control of your own party. The Republicans wish they had supers so they could have denied Trump. It's essentially what they're trying to do by having every big name they have make speeches about how terrible trump is. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
1) The entire Democrat Party apparatus unified behind her early, and 2) No one serious stood up to challenge her during the primary. Her primary campaign was meant to be a gigantic victory lap from the get-go. That Bernie did so well is a reflection of how feeble of a candidate she really is. She had every advantage imaginable during the primary, and still had trouble putting him away. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
- Clinton name is tied to Bill and he's generally well liked, accusations and all. - Continuing on the name, simple name recognition. - Bernie not getting ample coverage at the start of his run and often portrayed as a fringe candidate. A lot of people simply didn't know Bernie nearly as well. Especially in lower info voting circles. Lots of facebook videos of him sticking to his guns / values but not a plethora of information detailing everything about him and his life. Mostly just videos of him on the senate floor sticking to his values. You could probably make similar videos of Lyin' Ted. - I'd say overall the media made it clear that they wanted Hillary from the get go. CNN is aptly dubbed Clinton News Network. One could actually argue that they simply think she's the best candidate, but they + NYT have given her favourable coverage. I'm subscribed to a tonne of different news orgs on facebook, and throughout the course of the campaign were always people saying, "Where's Bernie! Cover Bernie! They don't want to cover him because he said break up the big banks and they're all in bed together!". NYT & Bill Maher (and I assume Huffpo) especially being bad. - Superdelegates... I honestly don't know if this helped or hindered and I can't find evidence of that. It shows her winning on MSM so people like to be part of the winning team? Pretty loose and flimsy claim so it's hard to say. I can't say they helped her win tbh. I think it's hard to say that she campaigned better by talking directly to voters and letting them know her agenda. I think she campaigned better simply by being who the Democrats have wanted in office for nearly a decade now and her lining up nearly everything beforehand to go. Her presidential aspirations have been known to us forever, and she made sure 2008 wouldn't happen again. So when people say she campaigned better.. I don't think she had better slogans or inspired people, nor do I think she rallied people or talked directly to them. I simply think she lined up all her connections beforehand and let them do most of the lifting. Which is a big part of why it's such an "anti-establishment" year and I think people have a case to make for Benrie that the media didn't cover him fairly, or nearly enough at the start of his campaign. Despite this, I'm glad they didn't because I can't stand his base. It's quite literally a "no fun allowed" crowd. On another note, since the "establishment" is so on board with her, I expect similar or less transparency from her than Obama. Who promised to be transparent, but her and Obama both have fought very hard against organizations trying to get information from them under the Freedom of Information Act. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15398 Posts
On June 25 2016 09:51 xDaunt wrote: Hillary won because: 1) The entire Democrat Party apparatus unified behind her early, and 2) No one serious stood up to challenge her during the primary. Her primary campaign was meant to be a gigantic victory lap from the get-go. That Bernie did so well is a reflection of how feeble of a candidate she really is. She had every advantage imaginable during the primary, and still had trouble putting him away. Could it not be argued that the surge in populism, largely responsible for Trump's victory, could also be a reason Bernie managed to do particularly well? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
