|
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 February 01 2017 10:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 09:30 xDaunt wrote:On February 01 2017 09:25 Azuzu wrote:On February 01 2017 09:16 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 09:11 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 09:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 01 2017 08:55 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 08:54 xDaunt wrote:On February 01 2017 08:50 Aquanim wrote:On February 01 2017 08:47 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I use "the Left" as a description for the political opposition to my side ("the Right"). There's no further judgment associated with the tag in either my usage of it or others' usage, but I find it interesting that you think that there is one. Your assertion of that, together with a very thinly veiled accusation that it's all in my head, doesn't make it true... nor is it likely to convince anybody that it's true. Rather the opposite, actually. Would you rather I use "Liberal?" Because I've also been told that Liberal is a pejorative term. How about this. Why don't you tell me what you self-identify as and we'll see if that's a better term to use. I don't care what term you use, I'm observing that you use "Left" as a perjorative, and unless you modify yourself I expect whatever term you use to represent a related concept is going to get used as a perjorative. See, I'm interpreting what you're saying as "xDaunt must be using 'the Left' as a pejorative term because whenever he uses the term, he is expressing some form of disagreement with, or attack on, the Left." If I relentlessly criticized ostriches in thread, would you say that I was using the term "ostrich" as a pejorative? In my world, things are what they are. My usage of the Left is merely a label. I don't think you're capable of evaluating the merits of a point of view held by the "Left" or the "Right" without a bias based on which of them holds it. I don't expect you're capable of agreeing with that statement, though. To be fair, that is a fault shared to a greater or lesser degree with most people in the world. To make a similar statement from another direction, you view the "Left"-leaning people in your own country as an enemy to be defeated, not fellow citizens to coexist with, as evidenced by your sympathy for this point of view. And that is how the left views the right in this country, as should be clear. Trump is a reaction to that, as xDaunt (and others) have been saying. I don't think it's too bold of a prediction to say whatever left comes up with next, will be in large part a reaction to Trump. Thus we've gone tit for tat and the country is no closer to be united on anything other than an agreement to radically change direction every 8 years. Like I've mentioned previously, I think that the Left's "correct" response to Trump will require some fairly dramatic changes to the playbook that they've used over the past generation or two. Given all of their doubling-down on their current strategies, I don't see the Left properly course-correcting any time soon. Aren't you at all concerned they will run some largely baggage free left mirror image of Trump and beat him in his inevitable bid for re-election? I find that idea almost as scary as what we currently have and if my imagination was better maybe I'd find it even worse. It's like an iterative prisoners dilemma solution... you are both better off co-operating, so you start by trying that. But if the other side is playing hawk the 'correct' response is to play hawk back from that point on.. Not sure anyone seems to trust the other side enough to take a chance on cooperation again.
Not really. First, Trump is unique in his abilities. I doubt that the Left can find someone that can replicate Trump's success (just like I don't expect the left to find a second Obama any time soon). Second, the Left's base is insufficiently similar to the Right's to produce a viable Trump-like candidate. Trump succeeded because the conditions on the Right were ripe for someone like him to come along. Those conditions don't exist on the Left. They might in a few years, but we're not there yet.
|
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad?
|
On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad?
depends what your goals and beliefs are.
for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good.
for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues)
|
On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues)
People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0%
|
On February 01 2017 10:29 oneofthem wrote:
the left's problem is not what strategy to choose. there are some obvious winners. it's rather would it be able to choose and prosecute any strategy whatsoever.
the primary process propels the radical wing of the dem party. caucuses and the very activated activist segment drive this effect. a guy like mike mullen, even if he were to run, would not be either the establish candidate or the activist darling. given how trolly trump has been and will continue to be, the dem primaries will feature at least one powerful Protester in Chief type character, and that's going to set the tenor of the 'debates'.
my boy jim webb tho. i hope he runs again.
Yes, the democratic primary process certainly was responsible for propelling that leftwing firebrand known as Hillary Clinton to the fore.
|
On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0%
I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution.
and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this.
|
On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0%
It was stolen.
Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position?
As someone who's more liberal than conservative, I can't say I'm happy with Gorsuch but I'm not at all surprised and at least he's not an unqualified moron. I don't think he'll do irreparable damage to America, nor do I think he'll make a mockery of the judiciary branch.
|
On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this.
I'm just going by the definition of stolen.
I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm.
What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing.
Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end.
On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? As someone who's more liberal than conservative, I can't say I'm happy with Gorsuch but I'm not at all surprised and at least he's not an unqualified moron. I don't think he'll do irreparable damage to America, nor do I think he'll make a mockery of the judiciary branch.
The most basic answer is that he promised to choose from a list other people gave him and liked his credentials.
|
Trump at least realized that Congress wouldn't accept a 30 year old or Breitbart reporter like he has in the oval office.
|
On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? As someone who's more liberal than conservative, I can't say I'm happy with Gorsuch but I'm not at all surprised and at least he's not an unqualified moron. I don't think he'll do irreparable damage to America, nor do I think he'll make a mockery of the judiciary branch. The most basic answer is that he promised to choose from a list other people gave him and liked his credentials.
you could say that of obama, but it'd be idiotic and wrong, so it's not really relevant.
the gop promised to block ANY nominee of obama, regardless of their ideology or qualifications, and they acted in accordance with that, which is plainly destructive and unconstitutional.
it's also been quite well documented historically that there's a big practical difference between actually voting against a candidate, and not holding a vote on them at all. if that weren't an issue they could've just held a vote and voted him down and been done with it, but they didn't. and they did so for a reaosn, because they knew it'd look bad to refuse a moderate and eminently qualified judge.
forcing politicians to own their actions and actually vote on the topic instead of using procedural nonsense to avoid taking a stand is unacceptable.
also, the big difference of holding hearings then voting him down would be following the constitution much more closely. it's quite possible for actions to lead to teh same result, but one is legal and the other isn't.
|
On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position?
I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid. Gorsuch comes directly from the list of potential nominees Trump released in September if you were following. Hardiman was on the list from May. And I don't remember other candidates floating names the way he did.
|
On February 01 2017 11:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid. Gorsuch comes directly from the list of potential nominees Trump released in September if you were following. Hardiman was on the list from May. And I don't remember other candidates floating names the way he did.
I'm not sure what is so dramatic about this that it deserves to be called a "slam-dunk".
|
On February 01 2017 11:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% It was stolen. Why did Donald Trump nominate an actual judge for the Supreme Court, instead of Kanye West, Melania Trump, or Chuck Norris? It's so unlike him, to appoint people with actual credentials. I guess his son, ten year old Barron, declined the position? I'm wondering why a college professor is twisting Trump slam-dunking a campaign promise into an attack on a 10 year old kid. Gorsuch comes directly from the list of potential nominees Trump released in September if you were following. Hardiman was on the list from May. And I don't remember other candidates floating names the way he did.
why did you use the term "slam-dunking" here instead of simply "fulfilling"?
I see nothing unusual or exceptional about this case that would warrant the more extreme use of the term slam-dunking.
just curious on why the particular word choice.
|
On February 01 2017 10:43 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
So this Neil Gorsuch fellow doesn't sound that bad. ... is that why nobody is discussing him?
Just some cursory reading but he sounds reasonable?
Basically everyone was expecting a carbon copy of Scalia. What we got was a carbon copy of Scalia. So there are zero additional fucks to give.
|
It doesn't matter, it's just a word, there's no secret code to unravel.
|
On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end.
The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point.
|
On February 01 2017 11:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2017 11:05 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:53 Introvert wrote:On February 01 2017 10:51 zlefin wrote:On February 01 2017 10:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Apparently he's (SCOTUS nominee) being called a copy of Scalia
Is that good or bad? depends what your goals and beliefs are. for the republicans, it's what they wanted so good. for dems, it's poor but not terrible, more as a result of the nomination having been stolen from them than of issues iwht the nominee themself. if there weren't a problematic history with this nomination it'd probably be regarded as fine or at least acceptable. with particulars depending on which issues you care about most (not sure of the finer details of what scalia is said on the various issues) People need to stop saying it was "stolen" because it wasn't. Maybe he should have had a hearing, but the GOP still controlled the senate. The chance Garland got confirmed was approx. 0% I will say stolen because it was, they failed to perform their constitutional duty, and they willfully did so in a matter that clearly goes against the intent of the constitution. and as I stated, some people can't admit it because of their partisanship (which can cause piles of unconscious bias), so I shan't expect otherwise from you on this. I'm just going by the definition of stolen. I criticize the GOP all the time, and I even said that perhaps he should have given a hearing. Of course if he was given a hearing, the GOP would be accused of playing theater after refusing to confirm. What difference would it have made if they held a hearing and then voted him down? The Senate was under no obligation to even hold a hearing. Perhaps we should say Obama failed his constitutional duty for keeping the same clearly-not-going-to-be-confirmed nominee for months on end. The amount of dishonest spin in this post is off the charts. The vacancy was Obama's to fill. The GOP decided to steal it by refusing to fulfill their constitutional duty. At least have the decency to recognize this. The reason Garland had an "approx. 0%" chance of getting confirmed was that the GOP decided to be partisan hacks, which is exactly the point.
The vacancy was Obama's to appoint, and the Senate's to affirm. Neither acted outside of their duty or constitutional right. They were under no obligation to confirm, and they still aren't. It's a shame Borking has come to this, but the Court is too powerful now.
|
Obama did his appointment, but did the Senate even hold a hearing? To my knowledge they actually never even pretended like they were going to consider any appointee from Obama. He did his part, but I don't believe that Congress even considered acting like they gave a shit about holding a hearing.
|
Related to Trump's presidency, things seem to be heating up on the Ukrainian front. The Ukrainian government is barely functional and they basically feel that the sanctions are their only leverage in the matter (lol). The situation looks quite similar to what it looked like right before the first Minsk accord failed and we might see a third outbreak of hostilities.
I suspect that the Ukrainian kleptocracy is in its death throes - the EU basically said they don't want the Ukraine, the US has Trump, and their internal government situation is quite horrid.
Tillerson wanted to give weapons to the Ukraine though. I wonder if anything will come of that.
|
On February 01 2017 11:34 Zambrah wrote:
Obama did his appointment, but did the Senate even hold a hearing? To my knowledge they actually never even pretended like they were going to consider any appointee from Obama. He did his part, but I don't believe that Congress even considered acting like they gave a shit about holding a hearing.
last I heard he was never even given a hearing. doing some google checking that seems to be correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
