|
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. |
On November 11 2016 10:21 Kickstart wrote:Not where I live. I am in Kentucky,and to say that Bernie appeals to rural white males here is not true. More than Hillary maybe, but not more than Trump appeals to them.... nah. Bernie is too easy for them to laugh off as a socialist and not think any more about anything he has to say. EDIT: Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:18 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 11 2016 10:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:59 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:19 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 09:10 Kickstart wrote:
The emotional attachment you are describing is due to demonizing candidates for the 4 years until the election. This time it was no secret that Hillary would be the nominee, so it was easy to figure out whose name to drag through the mud for 4 years. If there weren't a thousand republicans in their primary the same would have happened to them, as it did once it was Trump. So, kids are emotionally attached to Hillary because she's been demonized for the 4 years until election? It's more like the fact that young adults (and older adults, for that matter) who identify with pretty much any of the persecuted minorities are deathly afraid of their situation over the next four years, and are having trouble understanding why people would vote to disenfranchise them. It's the jeopardized rights, safety, and well-being of those minorities vs. the mere discomfort felt by conservatives getting backlash. It's very hard to empathize with conservatives getting their feelings hurt when other people are worried for their actual lives. is this qualitatively different from trumpkins gathering after a hypothetical hillary win to protest because they feel like their gun rights and freedoms were being taken away? I would say yes, because nothing Hillary (or Obama over the past 8 years, for that matter) has said would actually imply that she/ he wanted to take away people's guns/ repeal the 2nd Amendment. Background checks and closing loopholes on gun purchases are things that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members all support, and that's not the same as taking away guns/ killing the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, Trump has explicitly promised to screw over plenty of minorities. People are scared that Trump and Pence will do what they promised they'd do, so it's not just fabrication or fearmongering. Minorities aka illegal immigrants and radical Islamist terrorists. Not true. I am a white male, but still part of a minority, and as I have said before I am worried about my personal situation with a Trump win and republican controlled government. I would explain further but I don't really expect any understanding or sympathy about it so I see little point. Millions stand to be impacted if Trump and congress do the things they have said they intend to do, not just those two groups.
were those kentuckians thinking long and hard about what hillary had to say? i doubt it. saying bernie would have been laughed off as a socialist by some is not the point.
im not even convinced that your elaborated policies as a candidate matter at this point. bernie is a gruff old man who talks about tackling wealth inequality and providing jobs. "socialism" has almost nothing to do with it. people voted trump because they hated hillary
|
On November 11 2016 10:36 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 10:18 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 11 2016 10:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:59 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:19 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 09:10 Kickstart wrote:
The emotional attachment you are describing is due to demonizing candidates for the 4 years until the election. This time it was no secret that Hillary would be the nominee, so it was easy to figure out whose name to drag through the mud for 4 years. If there weren't a thousand republicans in their primary the same would have happened to them, as it did once it was Trump. So, kids are emotionally attached to Hillary because she's been demonized for the 4 years until election? It's more like the fact that young adults (and older adults, for that matter) who identify with pretty much any of the persecuted minorities are deathly afraid of their situation over the next four years, and are having trouble understanding why people would vote to disenfranchise them. It's the jeopardized rights, safety, and well-being of those minorities vs. the mere discomfort felt by conservatives getting backlash. It's very hard to empathize with conservatives getting their feelings hurt when other people are worried for their actual lives. is this qualitatively different from trumpkins gathering after a hypothetical hillary win to protest because they feel like their gun rights and freedoms were being taken away? I would say yes, because nothing Hillary (or Obama over the past 8 years, for that matter) has said would actually imply that she/ he wanted to take away people's guns/ repeal the 2nd Amendment. Background checks and closing loopholes on gun purchases are things that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members all support, and that's not the same as taking away guns/ killing the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, Trump has explicitly promised to screw over plenty of minorities. People are scared that Trump and Pence will do what they promised they'd do, so it's not just fabrication or fearmongering. Minorities aka illegal immigrants and radical Islamist terrorists. ... and women and LGBT Americans and blacks and Hispanics and Muslims and anyone who has dark skin who could be mistaken for black/ Hispanic/ Muslim... Issues like these: "During an interview with James Dobson, host of the wildly homophobic Focus on the Family, Mike Pence assured his interviewer and his supporters that any progress made toward protecting LGBTQ rights under President Obama will be swiftly undone under President Trump. Issue by issue, he asserted over and over again a plan to marginalize and invalidate an entire group of citizens whom he is about to lead as vice-president. Remember President Obama issuing orders to protect transgender citizens from being exposed to transphobia, hatred, and violence in public restrooms inside schools and federal buildings? Those protections are over." ~http://usuncut.news/2016/11/10/pence-promises-supporters-that-lgbtq-rights-will-be-first-to-go-video/ Now maybe there's a chance that Trump and Pence have been lying about being anti-LGBT/ anti-marriage equality/ pro- conversion therapy just to ensure some votes from people who presumably hate the LGBT community, but the point is that the LGBT community is legitimately worried that Trump and Pence will do what they pledge. It's not some crazy spin or fabrication or fearmongering; if the president-elect and vice president-elect are sincere in their disdain for the LGBT community, then the LGBT community is fucked. The link you posted showed why you should not afraid of Trump and deathly afraid of Pence. Trump gladly flip-flopped on issues to gain whatever leverage he could, but Pence is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and just bland enough to seem like a harmless stooge. Interesting enough, Pence was reigning in Trump on some of his more offensive statements on Muslims.
Particular to the LGBT situation, I don't really think Trump cares either way, but we know that Pence and the Republican Party do, and I don't see Trump stopping them unfortunately.
|
On November 11 2016 10:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Well, here we are then... Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:
One thing I've read a lot the recent days is "Bernie would have won" and the consensus seems to be to blame the loss on Hillary, but wasn't Bernie in the end just America's Corbyn? The guy couldn't stop the Brexit and Labour is probably going to be decimated, why are people so confident in their hypothetical Bernie scenario although nobody could even predict Trump's win a day before? We'll never know for certain obviously, we don't have an alternate universe where we can test out other possibilities for experimentation sake. Personally I don't think it would have hurt anything. He would have pulled some of the people that just want change, but not necessarily the baggage that came with Trump. Would that have been enough, who knows. But Bernie voters made up 43% of the primary voters, he had a very sizable following. You can't be seen as going against 40% of your base and come out roses in the end. It does you no favors at all. In the end it is what it is, not happy about it but being from Minnesota I'm used to loss, I bounce back pretty fucking quick. Grief takes time, people out there are upset and its understandable. People would be just as upset on the other side if she won. People will settle down and then we can work on a proper postmortem. I think anything coming out now is knee jerk, it's been 36 hours. Let people come at it with cooler heads and sift through the wreckage and rebuild bigger and better for next time. Maybe its Bernie, maybe its this, maybe its that, we gotta work on the autopsy first after people have calmed down.
I'm pretty sure the whole Corbyn situation is as good as a lab experiment as we're ever going to get. Labour elected their socialist who is a virtual copy of Bernie, they tripled their party membership by opening it up to everybody and had the candidate determined by plebiscite and still 2016 has been an absolute trainwreck. There is no basis for a socialist revolution, there are barely enough people to keep social liberal principles afloat. If you want to win everybody on the centre to far-left needs to team up, Social Democracy is not having a great time at all.
|
On November 11 2016 10:18 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:59 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:19 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 09:10 Kickstart wrote:
The emotional attachment you are describing is due to demonizing candidates for the 4 years until the election. This time it was no secret that Hillary would be the nominee, so it was easy to figure out whose name to drag through the mud for 4 years. If there weren't a thousand republicans in their primary the same would have happened to them, as it did once it was Trump. So, kids are emotionally attached to Hillary because she's been demonized for the 4 years until election? It's more like the fact that young adults (and older adults, for that matter) who identify with pretty much any of the persecuted minorities are deathly afraid of their situation over the next four years, and are having trouble understanding why people would vote to disenfranchise them. It's the jeopardized rights, safety, and well-being of those minorities vs. the mere discomfort felt by conservatives getting backlash. It's very hard to empathize with conservatives getting their feelings hurt when other people are worried for their actual lives. is this qualitatively different from trumpkins gathering after a hypothetical hillary win to protest because they feel like their gun rights and freedoms were being taken away? I would say yes, because nothing Hillary (or Obama over the past 8 years, for that matter) has said would actually imply that she/ he wanted to take away people's guns/ repeal the 2nd Amendment. Background checks and closing loopholes on gun purchases are things that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members all support, and that's not the same as taking away guns/ killing the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, Trump has explicitly promised to screw over plenty of minorities. People are scared that Trump and Pence will do what they promised they'd do, so it's not just fabrication or fearmongering. Minorities aka illegal immigrants and radical Islamist terrorists.
His policies are terrifying to minorities of all kinds, no matter who they are. Hunting down illegal immigrants makes immigrants scared that they will be mistaken for illegals, and the few Muslim kids are scared of the bad rep that they will get when leaving the city for college. Not everyone is smart enough to look past stereotypes, even if they get into good colleges; some of these people might be meeting a Muslim for the first time, and start with only these images of tourists to guide them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
If it really was TPP that got Trump elected, then he would not have that advantage against Bernie. And while Bernie is terrible with "true independents" as opposed to liberals who call themselves independents, he slightly edged out Hillary in that regard. Even some of the hardcore Hillary diehards in here admitted that Bernie would have been the stronger general election candidate.
And, mind you, this was before Putin, Darth Vader, James Comey, Julian Assange, and the ghost of Mao Zedong conspired to bury Hillary with emails.
|
On November 11 2016 10:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:21 Kickstart wrote:Not where I live. I am in Kentucky,and to say that Bernie appeals to rural white males here is not true. More than Hillary maybe, but not more than Trump appeals to them.... nah. Bernie is too easy for them to laugh off as a socialist and not think any more about anything he has to say. EDIT: On November 11 2016 10:18 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 11 2016 10:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:59 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:19 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 09:10 Kickstart wrote:
The emotional attachment you are describing is due to demonizing candidates for the 4 years until the election. This time it was no secret that Hillary would be the nominee, so it was easy to figure out whose name to drag through the mud for 4 years. If there weren't a thousand republicans in their primary the same would have happened to them, as it did once it was Trump. So, kids are emotionally attached to Hillary because she's been demonized for the 4 years until election? It's more like the fact that young adults (and older adults, for that matter) who identify with pretty much any of the persecuted minorities are deathly afraid of their situation over the next four years, and are having trouble understanding why people would vote to disenfranchise them. It's the jeopardized rights, safety, and well-being of those minorities vs. the mere discomfort felt by conservatives getting backlash. It's very hard to empathize with conservatives getting their feelings hurt when other people are worried for their actual lives. is this qualitatively different from trumpkins gathering after a hypothetical hillary win to protest because they feel like their gun rights and freedoms were being taken away? I would say yes, because nothing Hillary (or Obama over the past 8 years, for that matter) has said would actually imply that she/ he wanted to take away people's guns/ repeal the 2nd Amendment. Background checks and closing loopholes on gun purchases are things that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members all support, and that's not the same as taking away guns/ killing the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, Trump has explicitly promised to screw over plenty of minorities. People are scared that Trump and Pence will do what they promised they'd do, so it's not just fabrication or fearmongering. Minorities aka illegal immigrants and radical Islamist terrorists. Not true. I am a white male, but still part of a minority, and as I have said before I am worried about my personal situation with a Trump win and republican controlled government. I would explain further but I don't really expect any understanding or sympathy about it so I see little point. Millions stand to be impacted if Trump and congress do the things they have said they intend to do, not just those two groups. were those kentuckians thinking long and hard about what hillary had to say? i doubt it. saying bernie would have been laughed off as a socialist by some is not the point. im not even convinced that your elaborated policies as a candidate matter at this point. bernie is a gruff old man who talks about tackling wealth inequality and providing jobs. "socialism" has almost nothing to do with it. people voted trump because they hated hillary
You are right to say that policies might not even matter at this point. If this is the case though, explain the disdain for Hillary. If it isn't disdain based on her policies what is it based on. My point is that the same tools that were used to attack Hillary would have been used on Bernie. Thinking that Bernie would have done better is just guess work at this point, and as someone living in Kentucky saying that he would appeal more to rural folk is something I just don't see. I'm not sure where you or DPB live but I tend to want to say that this notion that Bernie could appeal to "rural white males" as it was put is some fantasy that some big city liberals have that just isn't true. But perhaps I am wrong ~
|
I live in New Jersey, but I think the people I talked to who thought Bernie could do better than Hillary in rural areas were referencing early polling data elsewhere, independent of my state ::shrugs::
|
On November 11 2016 10:21 Kickstart wrote:Not where I live. I am in Kentucky,and to say that Bernie appeals to rural white males here is not true. More than Hillary maybe, but not more than Trump appeals to them.... nah. Bernie is too easy for them to laugh off as a socialist and not think any more about anything he has to say. EDIT: Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:18 RealityIsKing wrote:On November 11 2016 10:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:59 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 09:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 11 2016 09:19 Sbrubbles wrote:On November 11 2016 09:10 Kickstart wrote:
The emotional attachment you are describing is due to demonizing candidates for the 4 years until the election. This time it was no secret that Hillary would be the nominee, so it was easy to figure out whose name to drag through the mud for 4 years. If there weren't a thousand republicans in their primary the same would have happened to them, as it did once it was Trump. So, kids are emotionally attached to Hillary because she's been demonized for the 4 years until election? It's more like the fact that young adults (and older adults, for that matter) who identify with pretty much any of the persecuted minorities are deathly afraid of their situation over the next four years, and are having trouble understanding why people would vote to disenfranchise them. It's the jeopardized rights, safety, and well-being of those minorities vs. the mere discomfort felt by conservatives getting backlash. It's very hard to empathize with conservatives getting their feelings hurt when other people are worried for their actual lives. is this qualitatively different from trumpkins gathering after a hypothetical hillary win to protest because they feel like their gun rights and freedoms were being taken away? I would say yes, because nothing Hillary (or Obama over the past 8 years, for that matter) has said would actually imply that she/ he wanted to take away people's guns/ repeal the 2nd Amendment. Background checks and closing loopholes on gun purchases are things that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members all support, and that's not the same as taking away guns/ killing the 2nd Amendment. On the other hand, Trump has explicitly promised to screw over plenty of minorities. People are scared that Trump and Pence will do what they promised they'd do, so it's not just fabrication or fearmongering. Minorities aka illegal immigrants and radical Islamist terrorists. Not true. I am a white male, but still part of a minority, and as I have said before I am worried about my personal situation with a Trump win and republican controlled government. I would explain further but I don't really expect any understanding or sympathy about it so I see little point. Millions stand to be impacted if Trump and congress do the things they have said they intend to do, not just those two groups.
Hillary was dead in KY and WV after her totally braindead comments about coal miners. Bernie was definitely more popular than her in Lexington even. I know of some facebook groups of eastern KY poets against neoliberalism, it was a weird time
|
On November 11 2016 09:25 Kickstart wrote:
This is purely speculation on your part. You have no idea if there would be protests if Trump lost, nor how violent or non-violent they would be.
Regardless, they have the right to assemble and protest, and I would argue it is a sign of a healthy democracy. You should be more worried whenever 50% of the country didn't vote for the candidate and after he wins there were no protests~
I'm just tired of the media silence whenever it's their ideological allies swarming cop cars, but at the hint of right-wing backlash they break out 24/7 news cycle on "dangerous" and "concerning" and "stoking fear" and all that gobbledygook. Oh, and I'll be the first to say a peaceful assembly on the state capitol is fine and dandy. But others in this thread posted the scenes out of Oakland, as an example, and that was clearly stepping over the line into an unruly mob and street beatings. I would hope concerned viewers like yourself would take some time to condemn violence, fires, and looting before narrative hopping to assembly and protest. Because you certainly saw BLM & crew do their schtick with impunity this year and last.
On the election results, I gotta say 31/50 governorships and 67/98 republican seemed hard to outdo going in.
We have a net +2 governor seats at this moment (NC lost seat came down to 0.1% of the vote, and they're still counting tens of thousands so could be +3).
State legislative chambers looks like 67 down to 66 for GOP and 31 down to 30 for Dems, depending if New York goes Republican after challenges are over and including the split house in connecticut. Big gains in Kentucky, the final Southern chamber that Democrats maintained control in. Dems got New Mexico & two in Nevada.
Everybody already knows Republicans lost two seats in the US Senate, which keeps them in power 52-46. Republicans lost six and Dems gained five in the House for a 241-194 comfortable majority.
It remains to be seen if Trump can lead an effective charge to repeal and replace Obamacare over a Senate filibuster, or if Democrats can muster the willpower to deny a Republican originalist appointment for four years. I doubt McConnell will suspend the filibuster rule willingly unless Trump and other Senators put sustained pressure on him. Reid's legacy of suspending the filibuster for Obama appointies (invoking the nuclear option) will mean people like Gingrich and Giuliani will likely easily pass for big SoS & AG positions. Interesting times. Trump could still do it. He will crash and burn if he fails to get the wall done, fails to nominate and fight for the justices on his list, and fails to champion the repeal & replace Obamacare plan, and I think he knows it. At least that part is heartening.
|
On November 11 2016 10:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Well, here we are then... On November 11 2016 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:
One thing I've read a lot the recent days is "Bernie would have won" and the consensus seems to be to blame the loss on Hillary, but wasn't Bernie in the end just America's Corbyn? The guy couldn't stop the Brexit and Labour is probably going to be decimated, why are people so confident in their hypothetical Bernie scenario although nobody could even predict Trump's win a day before? We'll never know for certain obviously, we don't have an alternate universe where we can test out other possibilities for experimentation sake. Personally I don't think it would have hurt anything. He would have pulled some of the people that just want change, but not necessarily the baggage that came with Trump. Would that have been enough, who knows. But Bernie voters made up 43% of the primary voters, he had a very sizable following. You can't be seen as going against 40% of your base and come out roses in the end. It does you no favors at all. In the end it is what it is, not happy about it but being from Minnesota I'm used to loss, I bounce back pretty fucking quick. Grief takes time, people out there are upset and its understandable. People would be just as upset on the other side if she won. People will settle down and then we can work on a proper postmortem. I think anything coming out now is knee jerk, it's been 36 hours. Let people come at it with cooler heads and sift through the wreckage and rebuild bigger and better for next time. Maybe its Bernie, maybe its this, maybe its that, we gotta work on the autopsy first after people have calmed down. I'm pretty sure the whole Corbyn situation is as good as a lab experiment as we're ever going to get. Labour elected their socialist who is a virtual copy of Bernie, they tripled their party membership by opening it up to everybody and had the candidate determined by plebiscite and still 2016 has been an absolute trainwreck. There is no basis for a socialist revolution, there are barely enough people to keep social liberal principles afloat. If you want to win everybody on the centre to far-left needs to team up, Social Democracy is not having a great time at all.
the alternative to Corbyn wasn't Hillary
I'm sure that Biden would have done better than Hillary if he had run, too
|
Is it possible for Trump to make a Supreme Court nominee make a guarantee regarding rulings, i.e. sign a contract saying that they will or will not overturn a certain law, such as the gay marriage ruling?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
Is it possible for Trump to make a Supreme Court nominee make a guarantee regarding rulings, i.e. sign a contract saying that they will or will not overturn a certain law, such as the gay marriage ruling?
No. That is absolutely not how justice selection works.
|
On November 11 2016 11:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
Is it possible for Trump to make a Supreme Court nominee make a guarantee regarding rulings, i.e. sign a contract saying that they will or will not overturn a certain law, such as the gay marriage ruling? No. That is absolutely not how justice selection works.
I didn't think it was, just wondering
|
On November 11 2016 11:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 10:46 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 10:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Well, here we are then... On November 11 2016 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:
One thing I've read a lot the recent days is "Bernie would have won" and the consensus seems to be to blame the loss on Hillary, but wasn't Bernie in the end just America's Corbyn? The guy couldn't stop the Brexit and Labour is probably going to be decimated, why are people so confident in their hypothetical Bernie scenario although nobody could even predict Trump's win a day before? We'll never know for certain obviously, we don't have an alternate universe where we can test out other possibilities for experimentation sake. Personally I don't think it would have hurt anything. He would have pulled some of the people that just want change, but not necessarily the baggage that came with Trump. Would that have been enough, who knows. But Bernie voters made up 43% of the primary voters, he had a very sizable following. You can't be seen as going against 40% of your base and come out roses in the end. It does you no favors at all. In the end it is what it is, not happy about it but being from Minnesota I'm used to loss, I bounce back pretty fucking quick. Grief takes time, people out there are upset and its understandable. People would be just as upset on the other side if she won. People will settle down and then we can work on a proper postmortem. I think anything coming out now is knee jerk, it's been 36 hours. Let people come at it with cooler heads and sift through the wreckage and rebuild bigger and better for next time. Maybe its Bernie, maybe its this, maybe its that, we gotta work on the autopsy first after people have calmed down. I'm pretty sure the whole Corbyn situation is as good as a lab experiment as we're ever going to get. Labour elected their socialist who is a virtual copy of Bernie, they tripled their party membership by opening it up to everybody and had the candidate determined by plebiscite and still 2016 has been an absolute trainwreck. There is no basis for a socialist revolution, there are barely enough people to keep social liberal principles afloat. If you want to win everybody on the centre to far-left needs to team up, Social Democracy is not having a great time at all. the alternative to Corbyn wasn't Hillary I'm sure that Biden would have done better than Hillary if he had run, too
But Biden did categorically not run, neither did anybody else. It was Bernie or Hillary and I do not see why we should just accept the claim that an anti-establishment left candidate would have somehow collected an automatic win. Trump tapped into anger and resentment that Bernie could not have served. Yes, he has more connections to the white working base, but his self proclaimed socialist policies are also deeply unpopular, especially when they are put on the spotlight. I am not confident that he could have sold his middle-class tax hikes to Rustbelt workers. And he never ran an anti-immigration or law & order agenda. This is just something that fundamentally disconnects the left from these people.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 11 2016 11:14 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 11:07 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 11:04 plasmidghost wrote:
Is it possible for Trump to make a Supreme Court nominee make a guarantee regarding rulings, i.e. sign a contract saying that they will or will not overturn a certain law, such as the gay marriage ruling? No. That is absolutely not how justice selection works. I didn't think it was, just wondering
For what it's worth, though justices sometimes make very partisan decisions they are still bound by legal standards that the will abide by. You can't pack a court to allow really illegal stuff to pass. In fact, previous presidents have complained "you can't pack a court with your friends because as soon as you put them on the court they stop being your friends." There is some degree of sanity check within the system.
|
On November 11 2016 11:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 11:02 IgnE wrote:On November 11 2016 10:46 Nyxisto wrote:On November 11 2016 10:21 OuchyDathurts wrote:Well, here we are then... On November 11 2016 10:04 Nyxisto wrote:
One thing I've read a lot the recent days is "Bernie would have won" and the consensus seems to be to blame the loss on Hillary, but wasn't Bernie in the end just America's Corbyn? The guy couldn't stop the Brexit and Labour is probably going to be decimated, why are people so confident in their hypothetical Bernie scenario although nobody could even predict Trump's win a day before? We'll never know for certain obviously, we don't have an alternate universe where we can test out other possibilities for experimentation sake. Personally I don't think it would have hurt anything. He would have pulled some of the people that just want change, but not necessarily the baggage that came with Trump. Would that have been enough, who knows. But Bernie voters made up 43% of the primary voters, he had a very sizable following. You can't be seen as going against 40% of your base and come out roses in the end. It does you no favors at all. In the end it is what it is, not happy about it but being from Minnesota I'm used to loss, I bounce back pretty fucking quick. Grief takes time, people out there are upset and its understandable. People would be just as upset on the other side if she won. People will settle down and then we can work on a proper postmortem. I think anything coming out now is knee jerk, it's been 36 hours. Let people come at it with cooler heads and sift through the wreckage and rebuild bigger and better for next time. Maybe its Bernie, maybe its this, maybe its that, we gotta work on the autopsy first after people have calmed down. I'm pretty sure the whole Corbyn situation is as good as a lab experiment as we're ever going to get. Labour elected their socialist who is a virtual copy of Bernie, they tripled their party membership by opening it up to everybody and had the candidate determined by plebiscite and still 2016 has been an absolute trainwreck. There is no basis for a socialist revolution, there are barely enough people to keep social liberal principles afloat. If you want to win everybody on the centre to far-left needs to team up, Social Democracy is not having a great time at all. the alternative to Corbyn wasn't Hillary I'm sure that Biden would have done better than Hillary if he had run, too But Biden did categorically not run, neither did anybody else. It was Bernie or Hillary and I do not see why we should just accept the claim that an anti-establishment left candidate would have somehow collected an automatic win. Trump tapped into anger and resentment that Bernie could not have served. Yes, he has more connections to the white working base, but his self proclaimed socialist policies are also deeply unpopular, especially when they are put on the spotlight. I am not confident that he could have sold his middle-class tax hikes to Rustbelt workers. And he never ran an anti-immigration or law & order agenda. This is just something that fundamentally disconnects the left from these people.
hillary made sure biden didn't run, didn't she?
you don't get to deny one counterfactual (biden didn't run, it was bernie or hillary) and then bring in your own unsubstantiated conclusion (bernie's policies are "deeply unpopular [...] especially when they are put on [sic] the spotlight")
here's what disconnects the democrats (who can hardly be called The Left) from people: shoving a technocratic deeply flawed robotic candidate down their throat
a lot of people this election, and in this thread, conflated establishment norms with "seriousness". bernie isn't serious enough, he doesn't know what he's talking about. well despite all of bernie's policy flaws he still looks a lot more informed than trump did, and look who won.
|
I'm petty sure Biden didn't run for personal reasons, including his son dying from brain cancer. This wasn't actually some plot that Hillary came up with to backstab the competition.
I didn't produce a counterfactual, just an argument. White working class people don't seem to like tax hikes. They're very unpopular. If Trump would have run against Bernie it seems natural that they would have talked about job loss, overburdening regulations, pretty much all the things that you can hurl at someone who runs on Bernie's platform. I never asserted that Bernie is not serious just that self-governance and 'small government' resonates with the people that Trump picked up.
|
show me the person who voted for hillary that would not have voted for bernie
i can show you at least some people who would have voted bernie over trump
|
What about socially conservative Latino Americans who wouldn't have glanced easily over Sanders history of Cuba admiration and the fact that he's not a Christian? Sure it didn't matter in the end because Florida overall didn't even matter, but would Sanders really have had a better shot in that state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
