US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9960

On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:

When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic.

On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:

Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here.

On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:

I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from.

On February 23 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:

No. The "living document" argument refers to how the Constitution should be interpreted -- namely that progressives, to avoid having to use the amendment process, simply try to reinterpret certain Constitutional provisions (like the 2nd Amendment or the commerce clause) to give them either no effect or a different effect.

On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:

The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue."

On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:

I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him.

On February 23 2018 09:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm getting the impression that you don't notice Igne is usually making fun of you even when he's 'agreeing' with you.

On February 23 2018 08:56 farvacola wrote:

Ehh, I'd wager that common law precedent is actually a pretty good vehicle for the procession of a society's legal framework and I think many of the issues facing the US can be attributed just as much to self-imposed judicial limitations as what one might call judicial overreach. The reach of the courts implicates different colors of politics depending on where it goes.

On February 23 2018 09:05 xDaunt wrote:

I don't like Igne because he agrees with me. He and I disagree on almost everything. I like Igne because he's an intelligent poster who reliably demonstrates comprehension of my posts (and others') before responding to them. His wit and "charm" are added bonuses.

On February 23 2018 09:32 A3th3r wrote:
the US needs to have a more coherent policy with regards to the middle east. I think that there is too much uncertainty & unrest in the region & that is playing into nationalist sentiments of extremist groups that exist in those places. Trying to contain Iran is a good step to prevent more disturbances from occurring.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/22/c_136989751.htm

On February 23 2018 07:36 xDaunt wrote:

Throw out the "saboteurs" language, and the statement is self-evident. The progressive foundation of democrat politics is predicated upon pushing society into a post-Constitutional state. The Constitution, as written and originally read, is an obstacle to progressive policy and its attendant government overreach. This is why progressives argue that the Constitution is a "living document." They need license to work around the Constitution's limitations.

On February 23 2018 09:42 hunts wrote:


So because they want to limit the access to assault weapons with large magazines and the ability for each bullet to go through 5 houses a car and 2 horses, they are post constitutional? Tell me again where the constitution says "the right to bear overly powerful arms without background checks or psych evaluations."

You have the nerve to speak about post constitutional without publicly shaming yourself for voting republican? Have you no sense of shame at all? The only time your people give any shits about the constitution is when they get to cry "but muh 2nd amendmunt! muh guns!" Aside from that they give no fucks about the law or the constitution as is evident by your glorious buffoon in chief and every single person around him.

On February 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:


Feels weird to me to think that the US should have more influence around Iran and Russia than Iran and Russia. I mean I get they are problematic countries but we are too. Perhaps not in the same ways, but we kill a lot of civilians every year, we've replaced democratically elected leaders with favorable dictators, and have military bases surrounding Iran and to a lesser degree Russia.

I wouldn't want to live under Putin, but it's not like the US gives a shit about the Russian people, if Putin was pro-America they'd turn a blind eye to all the stuff they dislike about him, same for Iran. We need look no further than Saudi Arabia.

On February 23 2018 10:01 Plansix wrote:

Putin isn't going to become pro-America any time soon. And it has nothing to do with us being aggressive towards him. He is facing what appears to be a growing opposition movement in Russia and anger over corruption. On top of all the other reasons for trying to influence elections, Putin and his oligarchs want be able to point to the dysfunction of multiparty democracy. He needs the appearance of an outside influence "attacking" Russia to keep his grip of the nation's wealth and power. And we and NATO/the EU serve that role for him right now.