|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 19 2019 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Speaking of elections, does it bother anyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum won't concede their losses? Last week or a couple weeks ago they both claimed that their elections were stolen by the GOP. Abrams said "I did win my election. I just didn't get to have the job." Gillum on Maher "Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be."
It might even set the stage for Trump claiming the election was stolen or he's the real winner if the vote counts had been tallied as they should.
yes, greatly concerned
|
On the death penalty, I'm for it in principle, but recognize that it's really difficult to do right in practice. I do think that there are some people who are simply irredeemable. I would never trust them in society and any resource spent on them is a waste. I also think there is that remote risk that they could escape and become a direct threat to society again. I would prefer that they were gone from the face of this earth.
The only reason why the death penalty is so expensive is the ridiculous appeals process. The actual act of killing someone in a reasonably humane way (compared to locking them up forever) could be quite cheap.
Having said that, the justice system is so messed up, that the risk of sending innocent people to death is too high. If Trump can get to the highest office in the land, then how the hell are we supposed to trust the people in lower offices. How do we trust judges, sheriffs, and public prosecutors to make sure trials are fair and evidence is real? If we could fix the justice system, I'd be in favor of the death penalty, but until then, I think it's better to give the justice system a chance to reverse itself.
On Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, there is a huge difference between someone saying that they should have won if X, Y, or Z happened while holding no power versus the president deciding not to step down after losing. The first isn't good unless they can supply the evidence to back it up, Trump did the same thing about the popular vote even when he won the election. Not good then and not good now. However, the second is worthy of a Civil War.
Right now Republicans scoff at the idea that Trump would hold power even if voted out, but the way he has eroded all norms and the Republican party has gone along with it worries me. What do you do when he says, "No, I'm not stepping down, I really won. The democrats had illegals vote for them and I really won." He probably wouldn't say it that coherently, but you can bet a faction of the Republican party would eat that up right now. The people like Mattis who I trusted to keep Trump in check are gone. If Trump does it, what happens?
That worries me and pointing to Andrew Gillum saying that he would have won if all the votes were counted doesn't help anyone. It's the Republican thing of finding some democrat somewhere who said something while taking no action and using it to justify their terrible actions. It's ridiculous and much more worrisome than what Gillum said. If it wasn't Gillum or Abrams, they'd find someone else to justify it. Some loony can probably find some bible verse.
|
On March 19 2019 14:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Speaking of elections, does it bother anyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum won't concede their losses? Last week or a couple weeks ago they both claimed that their elections were stolen by the GOP. Abrams said "I did win my election. I just didn't get to have the job." Gillum on Maher "Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be."
It might even set the stage for Trump claiming the election was stolen or he's the real winner if the vote counts had been tallied as they should. He would do that anyway. Even when he won the electoral college he still claimed that he was also the real winner of the popular vote.
He pre-emptively claimed the vote was fixed when everyone thought he was going to lose. I can't be the only one who remembers this, can I?
|
On March 19 2019 15:54 RenSC2 wrote:
On the death penalty, I'm for it in principle, but recognize that it's really difficult to do right in practice. I do think that there are some people who are simply irredeemable. I would never trust them in society and any resource spent on them is a waste. I also think there is that remote risk that they could escape and become a direct threat to society again. I would prefer that they were gone from the face of this earth.
The only reason why the death penalty is so expensive is the ridiculous appeals process. The actual act of killing someone in a reasonably humane way (compared to locking them up forever) could be quite cheap.
Having said that, the justice system is so messed up, that the risk of sending innocent people to death is too high. If Trump can get to the highest office in the land, then how the hell are we supposed to trust the people in lower offices. How do we trust judges, sheriffs, and public prosecutors to make sure trials are fair and evidence is real? If we could fix the justice system, I'd be in favor of the death penalty, but until then, I think it's better to give the justice system a chance to reverse itself.
On Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, there is a huge difference between someone saying that they should have won if X, Y, or Z happened while holding no power versus the president deciding not to step down after losing. The first isn't good unless they can supply the evidence to back it up, Trump did the same thing about the popular vote even when he won the election. Not good then and not good now. However, the second is worthy of a Civil War.
Right now Republicans scoff at the idea that Trump would hold power even if voted out, but the way he has eroded all norms and the Republican party has gone along with it worries me. What do you do when he says, "No, I'm not stepping down, I really won. The democrats had illegals vote for them and I really won." He probably wouldn't say it that coherently, but you can bet a faction of the Republican party would eat that up right now. The people like Mattis who I trusted to keep Trump in check are gone. If Trump does it, what happens?
That worries me and pointing to Andrew Gillum saying that he would have won if all the votes were counted doesn't help anyone. It's the Republican thing of finding some democrat somewhere who said something while taking no action and using it to justify their terrible actions. It's ridiculous and much more worrisome than what Gillum said. If it wasn't Gillum or Abrams, they'd find someone else to justify it. Some loony can probably find some bible verse.
I brought it up because the “eroded all norms” crowd has some truth behind the hyperbole. I note your hesitation to even say conceding a defeat in a Democracy is a norm and two people are currently eroding it. You may remember all the trepidation spent by the Hillary campaign on whether or not Trump would accept a loss, and now that’s kind of blown. So how much of this is partisanship and how much is genuine concern for the norms? Is Trump now free to protest the rigged result of a thrown election, because nobody really goes beyond “oh, that doesnt help anyone” (provided he also steps down)?
The other shoe to drop is how many Democratic presidential candidates are flirting with a court-packing regime to challenge the effective result of the President’s judicial appointments. That norm has stood since the 1800s. Maybe this is just 3 Democratic presidential candidates playing to their more radical base. It does however ask the question of which norms-destroyers you want in the White House, or if it even matters since Trump destroyed all of them?
|
What was it? 14 of the last 18 judges were assigned by Republicans which nowhere near mirrors the electorate or even the amount of presidents each party had. So you can easily see that democrats have an issue, especially because the judges got more and more partisan over time.
Just adding more judges is obviously a stupid idea because this can easily spiral out of control, but something should be done? At least if you in principal agree that the supreme court should reflect the electorate or at least the power balance between the parties?
|
I'd be more concerned if, I dunno, Republicans have been paying folks to schlep around during voting time to collect blank ballots. Or excluding the votes of certain demographics for literally no reason whatsoever. Or redrawing the districts whenever they get the chance so they don't have to face a fair vote going forward. But sure. It's 2 people who don't matter right now, who happen to be Democrats, who are eroding all the norms of the democracy. And not the very much in-power pussy-grabber in-chief who claimed to win the popular vote by a landslide, and that it was all sunshine during his massive inauguration crowd. Lol.
|
On March 19 2019 21:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 15:54 RenSC2 wrote:
On the death penalty, I'm for it in principle, but recognize that it's really difficult to do right in practice. I do think that there are some people who are simply irredeemable. I would never trust them in society and any resource spent on them is a waste. I also think there is that remote risk that they could escape and become a direct threat to society again. I would prefer that they were gone from the face of this earth.
The only reason why the death penalty is so expensive is the ridiculous appeals process. The actual act of killing someone in a reasonably humane way (compared to locking them up forever) could be quite cheap.
Having said that, the justice system is so messed up, that the risk of sending innocent people to death is too high. If Trump can get to the highest office in the land, then how the hell are we supposed to trust the people in lower offices. How do we trust judges, sheriffs, and public prosecutors to make sure trials are fair and evidence is real? If we could fix the justice system, I'd be in favor of the death penalty, but until then, I think it's better to give the justice system a chance to reverse itself.
On Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum, there is a huge difference between someone saying that they should have won if X, Y, or Z happened while holding no power versus the president deciding not to step down after losing. The first isn't good unless they can supply the evidence to back it up, Trump did the same thing about the popular vote even when he won the election. Not good then and not good now. However, the second is worthy of a Civil War.
Right now Republicans scoff at the idea that Trump would hold power even if voted out, but the way he has eroded all norms and the Republican party has gone along with it worries me. What do you do when he says, "No, I'm not stepping down, I really won. The democrats had illegals vote for them and I really won." He probably wouldn't say it that coherently, but you can bet a faction of the Republican party would eat that up right now. The people like Mattis who I trusted to keep Trump in check are gone. If Trump does it, what happens?
That worries me and pointing to Andrew Gillum saying that he would have won if all the votes were counted doesn't help anyone. It's the Republican thing of finding some democrat somewhere who said something while taking no action and using it to justify their terrible actions. It's ridiculous and much more worrisome than what Gillum said. If it wasn't Gillum or Abrams, they'd find someone else to justify it. Some loony can probably find some bible verse.
I brought it up because the “eroded all norms” crowd has some truth behind the hyperbole. I note your hesitation to even say conceding a defeat in a Democracy is a norm and two people are currently eroding it. You may remember all the trepidation spent by the Hillary campaign on whether or not Trump would accept a loss, and now that’s kind of blown. So how much of this is partisanship and how much is genuine concern for the norms? Is Trump now free to protest the rigged result of a thrown election, because nobody really goes beyond “oh, that doesnt help anyone” (provided he also steps down)? The other shoe to drop is how many Democratic presidential candidates are flirting with a court-packing regime to challenge the effective result of the President’s judicial appointments. That norm has stood since the 1800s. Maybe this is just 3 Democratic presidential candidates playing to their more radical base. It does however ask the question of which norms-destroyers you want in the White House, or if it even matters since Trump destroyed all of them?
Since the 1800s? I guess that time FDR pushed congress to undercut an imperial Supreme Court was skipped over in your history classes. Or the fact that Jefferson tried to impeach a justice that didn't rule the way Jefferson felt he should. Or when Jackson just ignored the court's orders. You act like congress and the president have treated the high court like it is sacrosanct throughout all of US history. Which is a helpful fiction for the conservative wishing to preserve the power they have obtained in the courts over the last 30 years.
The norms you are referencing only existed in the 20th century because destroyed the previous sent of norms from the 19th century during the Great Depression. The master plan of the Conservatives to create political change through packing the federal bench is not a new plan and one that was always going result in Democrats in congress pushing back. This is what you were always asking for.
You can't scare us with this talk of destroying norms or concern trolling about protecting democracy. New norms will be set after we are done tearing down the ones that no longer work. We have done this before and will do it again, so enjoy the show.
|
On March 19 2019 21:34 Velr wrote:
What was it? 14 of the last 18 judges were assigned by Republicans which nowhere near mirrors the electorate or even the amount of presidents each party had. So you can easily see that democrats have an issue, especially because the judges got more and more partisan over time.
Just adding more judges is obviously a stupid idea because this can easily spiral out of control, but something should be done? At least if you in principal agree that the supreme court should reflect the electorate or at least the power balance between the parties?
One could set up a system where judges need to be confirmed with 2/3 majorities in both chambers or something. Effectively that would mean that judges can never be as partisan and need to represent all of the country. Theoretically, there should be some judges that everyone can agree upon.
I don't know if that would work in a hyperpartisan setting as the one we have right now, or if that would simply mean that there are never any new judges appointed. But it really doesn't help if the courts are basically a weirdly delayed version of the legislative, where you can get randomly lucky (or game the system in undemocratic ways) and get to have control of the courts for a few decades simply because you happened to be in power when a bunch of judges needed to be reappointed. Also, once you are in control, you don't really lose control as long as your judges simply retire when your party is in control.
|
From my limited experience, the courts do not want to be viewed as an avenue for political change or a system to be gamed. Unlike the legislature, the makeup of the courts and number of judges is not fixed in the constitution and can be set by law makers. And they do not control their own funding or how much staff they have. Or even how many cases they handle a year. Obviously there are some expectations with some judges, but most do not see themselves as policy makers.
Of course, the makeup of the federal bench is important, but it is not the only way the legislature can set the tone of how laws are handled in the US. The Courts seem very powerful these days because the federal legislature doesn’t do anything. So the biggest changes in US law have mostly come from the Courts post 2000.
|
This has not gotten a lot of coverage, but has to be the scariest thing I’ve read about this administration in a while. I really hope the House launches an investigation into what the fuck the state department is doing only talk to faith based media outlets about anything.
|
I mean, norms about believing elections are fair are long dead. One side believes the GOP is systematically disenfranchising people they don't want to vote under the auspices of the voter fraud boogeyman (or under no boogeyman at all as in NC in 2016) and the other believes there are tons of illegal voters they need to stop at any cost (up to 3 million, according to the president) that may or may not be coordinated by the DNC.
It's probably more damaging to have people not officially concede, but "there are ongoing concerns about the voting process but I'll concede anyway" has been the verbiage of choice for the GOP a while in a given election. The cynical view of this is that their hands are a bit tied, at least officially, because any investigations that showed no fraud would kill their boogeyman.
(it's also cute to imply the fears surrounding Trump conceding a loss is overblown-the man can't even concede a popular vote loss)
|
On March 20 2019 01:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, norms about believing elections are fair are long dead. One side believes the GOP is systematically disenfranchising people they don't want to vote under the auspices of the voter fraud boogeyman (or under no boogeyman at all as in NC in 2016) and the other believes there are tons of illegal voters they need to stop at any cost (up to 3 million, according to the president) that may or may not be coordinated by the DNC. GOP is gerrymandering. Most aren't stupid enough to commit actual election fraud.
|
On March 20 2019 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2019 01:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, norms about believing elections are fair are long dead. One side believes the GOP is systematically disenfranchising people they don't want to vote under the auspices of the voter fraud boogeyman (or under no boogeyman at all as in NC in 2016) and the other believes there are tons of illegal voters they need to stop at any cost (up to 3 million, according to the president) that may or may not be coordinated by the DNC. GOP is gerrymandering. Most aren't stupid enough to commit actual election fraud.
Oh, it's rarely direct election fraud. It's mostly closing polling places or limiting early voting in cities with high concentrations of Democratic voters and doing analyses to see which forms of ID will impact Democratic voters the most.
Well, unless you believe the NC GOP were an exception because they were doing it and not an exception because they got caught. Thank the lord McCrory lost in 2016 and the legislature's unconstitutional attempts to strip Roy Cooper of some of his election-regulating powers because he was a Democrat got overruled.
|
Paul Ryan is now on the board of Fox News. I think V for Vendetta was slightly more subtle than the current conservative party.
|
|
|
The only plus side to all of this is it is completely obliterating any cover that Fox News about being neutral or providing unbiased coverage. Even if they point to MSNBC or some other “left leaning” network, there is no way to counter the argument that leaders of the Republican Party are on the god damn board of the network. Or that their former employees worked in the White House or they hired former White House employees. So when the hammer finally drops and congress gets back into dealing with the problems created by deregulating who owns news networks in the US, Fox News’s screams about government overreach won’t carry much weight.
Speaking of news coverage, Facebook has been unable to provide local news coverage to its users because it can’t find reporting on it. It and Google put all those local news papers and networks out of business by soaking all the ad revenue, so now there is nothing. The free market did not provide. Instead there is a gaping hole in the market that likely won’t get filled for a decade or longer. Which is super great for rural America, where reporters were the only people keeping the population updated and informed on what local government was doing.
You can’t make this shit up. Facebook is unable to find the product made by the industry it helped destroy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-says-local-news-effort-hindered-reporting-shortage-n984436
|
On March 19 2019 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Speaking of elections, does it bother anyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum won't concede their losses? Last week or a couple weeks ago they both claimed that their elections were stolen by the GOP. Abrams said "I did win my election. I just didn't get to have the job." Gillum on Maher "Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be."
It might even set the stage for Trump claiming the election was stolen or he's the real winner if the vote counts had been tallied as they should.
Let me be clear about that.
- You are not concerned when gerrymandering happens, and districts with all kind of bizarre shapes appear, to skew votes towards a party ? (some dems, most reps) I remember seeing a state senate with the republicans at about 47/48%, but with a large majority of the seats... I'll try to find it again. edit : found it.
- You are not concerned when Trump is claiming before the election that whatever the result is, it IS rigged against him and that he would not accept the result if he loses. After he won EC, he argued he won the popular vote.
- You are not concerned when minorities are discouraged to vote, either via fewer number of voting machines, some really strange election laws, or other questionable maneuvers (like suddenly requiring a street address when the officials clearly know some reservations don't have one)
- I don't remember seeing you complain about the only proven instance of voting fraud in NC, but I might have missed it.
- You are concerned when Abrams, in the face of all the bullshit that happened during those elections, is telling the same as the Don, and when Gillum is "wondering" ?
This ship has sailed already. Everything the republicans did to win or contest elections results should be considered as fair game by the democrats, because you know, keeping the moral high ground, in these cases, mean you just lose further and further. If anything, you know who to blame.
Death Penalty
You may find my views questionable on death penalty, but I support it in certain cases when we are absolutely certain who the culprit is. Crimes against children (sexual abuse/murder etc), extreme cases of rape, torture or other inhuman shit. I don't want to spend public money in keeping these guys alive. And it shouldn't cost the insane amount I've seen a few pages ago...
The american police forces often kill when they have even a slight doubt an individual is resisting arrest or carrying a weapon (they should have that right to defend themselves, but they are so extreme.......) that I don't even see how the remote possibility that some obvious culprit might be innocent is even relevant when you see everything that happens in the country. It's like saving a tree to hide the destroyed forest... Hey look we saved one !![[image loading]](https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/2016/02/tfci-drivers-riau-one-tree.jpg?itok=YYlmksAi)
On March 19 2019 22:39 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 21:34 Velr wrote:
What was it? 14 of the last 18 judges were assigned by Republicans which nowhere near mirrors the electorate or even the amount of presidents each party had. So you can easily see that democrats have an issue, especially because the judges got more and more partisan over time.
Just adding more judges is obviously a stupid idea because this can easily spiral out of control, but something should be done? At least if you in principal agree that the supreme court should reflect the electorate or at least the power balance between the parties? One could set up a system where judges need to be confirmed with 2/3 majorities in both chambers or something. Effectively that would mean that judges can never be as partisan and need to represent all of the country. Theoretically, there should be some judges that everyone can agree upon. I don't know if that would work in a hyperpartisan setting as the one we have right now, or if that would simply mean that there are never any new judges appointed. But it really doesn't help if the courts are basically a weirdly delayed version of the legislative, where you can get randomly lucky (or game the system in undemocratic ways) and get to have control of the courts for a few decades simply because you happened to be in power when a bunch of judges needed to be reappointed. Also, once you are in control, you don't really lose control as long as your judges simply retire when your party is in control.
Well they had to be approved by 60 votes out of 100 if my memory serves. Democrats under Obama removed that rule for lower court judges, then McConnell, after refusing to hold a hearing on Garland with a little less than 1 year (25%) of Obama's presidency left (and blocking who knows how many lower court judges), removed that rule as well for Supreme Court, in order to confirm the latest two easily after the justified outrage from the Garland missed appointment.
|
On March 20 2019 05:42 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Speaking of elections, does it bother anyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum won't concede their losses? Last week or a couple weeks ago they both claimed that their elections were stolen by the GOP. Abrams said "I did win my election. I just didn't get to have the job." Gillum on Maher "Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be."
It might even set the stage for Trump claiming the election was stolen or he's the real winner if the vote counts had been tallied as they should. Let me be clear about that. - You are not concerned when gerrymandering happens, and districts with all kind of bizarre shapes appear, to skew votes towards a party ? (some dems, most reps) I remember seeing a state senate with the republicans at about 47/48%, but with a large majority of the seats... I'll try to find it again. edit : found it. - You are not concerned when Trump is claiming before the election that whatever the result is, it IS rigged against him and that he would not accept the result if he loses. After he won EC, he argued he won the popular vote. - You are not concerned when minorities are discouraged to vote, either via fewer number of voting machines, some really strange election laws, or other questionable maneuvers (like suddenly requiring a street address when the officials clearly know some reservations don't have one) - I don't remember seeing you complain about the only proven instance of voting fraud in NC, but I might have missed it. - You are concerned when Abrams, in the face of all the bullshit that happened during those elections, is telling the same as the Don, and when Gillum is "wondering" ? This ship has sailed already. Everything the republicans did to win or contest elections results should be considered as fair game by the democrats, because you know, keeping the moral high ground, in these cases, mean you just lose further and further. If anything, you know who to blame. You may find my views questionable on death penalty, but I support it in certain cases when we are absolutely certain who the culprit is. Crimes against children (sexual abuse/murder etc), extreme cases of rape, torture or other inhuman shit. I don't want to spend public money in keeping these guys alive. And it shouldn't cost the insane amount I've seen a few pages ago... The american police forces often kill when they have even a slight doubt an individual is resisting arrest or carrying a weapon (they should have that right to defend themselves, but they are so extreme.......) that I don't even see how the remote possibility that some obvious culprit might be innocent is even relevant when you see everything that happens in the country. It's like saving a tree to hide the destroyed forest... Hey look we saved one ! Show nested quote +On March 19 2019 22:39 Simberto wrote:On March 19 2019 21:34 Velr wrote:
What was it? 14 of the last 18 judges were assigned by Republicans which nowhere near mirrors the electorate or even the amount of presidents each party had. So you can easily see that democrats have an issue, especially because the judges got more and more partisan over time.
Just adding more judges is obviously a stupid idea because this can easily spiral out of control, but something should be done? At least if you in principal agree that the supreme court should reflect the electorate or at least the power balance between the parties? One could set up a system where judges need to be confirmed with 2/3 majorities in both chambers or something. Effectively that would mean that judges can never be as partisan and need to represent all of the country. Theoretically, there should be some judges that everyone can agree upon. I don't know if that would work in a hyperpartisan setting as the one we have right now, or if that would simply mean that there are never any new judges appointed. But it really doesn't help if the courts are basically a weirdly delayed version of the legislative, where you can get randomly lucky (or game the system in undemocratic ways) and get to have control of the courts for a few decades simply because you happened to be in power when a bunch of judges needed to be reappointed. Also, once you are in control, you don't really lose control as long as your judges simply retire when your party is in control. Well they had to be approved by 60 votes out of 100 if my memory serves. Democrats under Obama removed that rule for lower court judges, then McConnell, after refusing to hold a hearing on Garland with a little less than 1 year (25%) of Obama's presidency left (and blocking who knows how many lower court judges), removed that rule as well for Supreme Court, in order to confirm the latest two easily after the justified outrage from the Garland missed appointment.
I wanted to hear you say that Trump was the one that made you also want to break the norms. I don’t want to assume that about you. I want to hear that “the ship has sailed” and plant the excuse that fighting to preserve norms “mean you just lose further and further” from your own mouth. That puts us in comfortable territory deciding which partisan side you favor. The principles are just lip service when you’re comfortably winning.
I bring up Gillum and Abrams, and you’re immediately onto the bad stuff that Trump did without even confronting your own side. It’s all justified now and nothing matters. Ok. Have a fun 2020 election season.
|
On March 20 2019 06:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2019 05:42 Nouar wrote:On March 19 2019 13:49 Danglars wrote:
Speaking of elections, does it bother anyone that Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum won't concede their losses? Last week or a couple weeks ago they both claimed that their elections were stolen by the GOP. Abrams said "I did win my election. I just didn't get to have the job." Gillum on Maher "Had we been able to legally count every one of those votes not just in Florida but in Georgia, I wonder what the outcome may be."
It might even set the stage for Trump claiming the election was stolen or he's the real winner if the vote counts had been tallied as they should. Let me be clear about that. - You are not concerned when gerrymandering happens, and districts with all kind of bizarre shapes appear, to skew votes towards a party ? (some dems, most reps) I remember seeing a state senate with the republicans at about 47/48%, but with a large majority of the seats... I'll try to find it again. edit : found it. - You are not concerned when Trump is claiming before the election that whatever the result is, it IS rigged against him and that he would not accept the result if he loses. After he won EC, he argued he won the popular vote. - You are not concerned when minorities are discouraged to vote, either via fewer number of voting machines, some really strange election laws, or other questionable maneuvers (like suddenly requiring a street address when the officials clearly know some reservations don't have one) - I don't remember seeing you complain about the only proven instance of voting fraud in NC, but I might have missed it. - You are concerned when Abrams, in the face of all the bullshit that happened during those elections, is telling the same as the Don, and when Gillum is "wondering" ? This ship has sailed already. Everything the republicans did to win or contest elections results should be considered as fair game by the democrats, because you know, keeping the moral high ground, in these cases, mean you just lose further and further. If anything, you know who to blame. Death Penalty You may find my views questionable on death penalty, but I support it in certain cases when we are absolutely certain who the culprit is. Crimes against children (sexual abuse/murder etc), extreme cases of rape, torture or other inhuman shit. I don't want to spend public money in keeping these guys alive. And it shouldn't cost the insane amount I've seen a few pages ago... The american police forces often kill when they have even a slight doubt an individual is resisting arrest or carrying a weapon (they should have that right to defend themselves, but they are so extreme.......) that I don't even see how the remote possibility that some obvious culprit might be innocent is even relevant when you see everything that happens in the country. It's like saving a tree to hide the destroyed forest... Hey look we saved one ! On March 19 2019 22:39 Simberto wrote:On March 19 2019 21:34 Velr wrote:
What was it? 14 of the last 18 judges were assigned by Republicans which nowhere near mirrors the electorate or even the amount of presidents each party had. So you can easily see that democrats have an issue, especially because the judges got more and more partisan over time.
Just adding more judges is obviously a stupid idea because this can easily spiral out of control, but something should be done? At least if you in principal agree that the supreme court should reflect the electorate or at least the power balance between the parties? One could set up a system where judges need to be confirmed with 2/3 majorities in both chambers or something. Effectively that would mean that judges can never be as partisan and need to represent all of the country. Theoretically, there should be some judges that everyone can agree upon. I don't know if that would work in a hyperpartisan setting as the one we have right now, or if that would simply mean that there are never any new judges appointed. But it really doesn't help if the courts are basically a weirdly delayed version of the legislative, where you can get randomly lucky (or game the system in undemocratic ways) and get to have control of the courts for a few decades simply because you happened to be in power when a bunch of judges needed to be reappointed. Also, once you are in control, you don't really lose control as long as your judges simply retire when your party is in control. Well they had to be approved by 60 votes out of 100 if my memory serves. Democrats under Obama removed that rule for lower court judges, then McConnell, after refusing to hold a hearing on Garland with a little less than 1 year (25%) of Obama's presidency left (and blocking who knows how many lower court judges), removed that rule as well for Supreme Court, in order to confirm the latest two easily after the justified outrage from the Garland missed appointment. I wanted to hear you say that Trump was the one that made you also want to break the norms. I don’t want to assume that about you. I want to hear that “the ship has sailed” and plant the excuse that fighting to preserve norms “mean you just lose further and further” from your own mouth. That puts us in comfortable territory deciding which partisan side you favor. The principles are just lip service when you’re comfortably winning. I bring up Gillum and Abrams, and you’re immediately onto the bad stuff that Trump did without even confronting your own side. It’s all justified now and nothing matters. Ok. Have a fun 2020 election season.
They didn’t concede because they felt there were clear cases of voter suppression and made substantive arguments that the incumbent governor abused their position to suppress the vote.
Trump argued he won the popular vote because 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California and created a commission to investigate that failed to prove anything. To date, there has been zero evidence to back up Trumps claim.
But don’t let facts and context get in the way of a good “Your side is just as bad” wank session.
|
Well there are two possibilities here Danglars. Clearly you are concerned about Trump not accepting defeat if he loses, and that's a valid thing to be concerned about considering how narcissistic and overall terrible he is. Every reasonable person shares your concern. That you brought up some democrats to talk about in your post about this tells us either:
1) that you plan on supporting Trump when he does that and you're rationalizing it with a "the left does it too" narrative.
2) that it's psychologically hard for you to say something bad about republicans without also shitting on someone to your left at the same time to make yourself feel better.
I can't think of many other options. But a conversation about what's going to happen if Trump doesn't accept defeat could be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
