| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Lincoln also wasn't a sure thing 1864, general consensus at the time would've placed him with a lead similar to Biden's now. Susan Collins has joined Murkowski. I don't think this matters at all though. Romney can join them and it still wouldn't matter. Another senator after THAT could abstain and it still wouldn't matter (though the time crunch would be even more insane than it is right now if Kelly takes AZ). | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:21 Nevuk wrote: The 32-10 republican senate in 1864 sure rushed through that appointment because Lincoln was also a republican. (Sarcasm here). Lincoln also wasn't a sure thing 1864, general consensus at the time would've placed him with a lead similar to Biden's now. Susan Collins has joined Murkowski. I don't think this matters at all though. Romney can join them and it still wouldn't matter. Another senator after THAT could abstain and it still wouldn't matter (though the time crunch would be even more insane than it is right now if Kelly takes AZ). https://twitter.com/SenatorCollins/status/1307412600397987842 This is similar to what Obama said, which I haven't seen any arguments against yet. It feels like the basic premise of once you do something one way, you must do it that way the next time, or we simply have no system. “Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in,” Obama wrote in a statement. “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment,” he said, adding that the legitimacy of American courts and democracy depend on the equal application of this standard. “As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard,” Obama said. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
1) That the SCOTUS has far too much power and needs to be reigned in. 9 Robed fellows shouldn't dictate as much as they do. It's clear that of the branches of the Government the Judicial branch has much more power. That's an issue especially when folks use it a political weapon to ram through whatever shit they want. Don't act high and mighty both sides have done this for eons. 2) Reid myopically destroying the filibuster. Democrats you did this to yourself in the attempt to transiently get a few things done during Obama's tenure. You reap what you sow as they say. It's abundantly clear to me that if folks are willing to go to "war" and riot over one party having a majority of one branches of the Government that that branch of Government has far too much power. This is a problem of the SCOTUS itself, but hey, y'all don't care, you want the power just as much as the GOP. There's no "principled" folks on your side lol. You're just mad you don't have power and will do anything to get it, just like the Republicans did. It's naked avarice and lust to rule over those you hate or see evil as many of you put it. GOP sees you as evil, you see GOP as evil. All this is doing is ratcheting up the inevitable dissolution of the US...which, hey, as long as it's not a shooting war I'm all for. CalExit - yes, please. Texit - Yes, please. NYexit, yes, please. ALexit - bring it on. Then again, a lot of the commenters here are European (which I find so odd you guys get so passionate about foreign country elections) so it's whatever. Maybe you guys should focus on Belarus, Poland, Hungary, etc. Don't be acting like you're some enlightened angels. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22628 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:29 Wegandi wrote:Then again, a lot of the commenters here are European (which I find so odd you guys get so passionate about foreign country elections) so it's whatever. Maybe you guys should focus on Belarus, Poland, Hungary, etc. Don't be acting like you're some enlightened angels. What happens in Belarus, Poland or Hungary has very little effect outside their country.What happens in the US resonates throughout the western world. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:35 Gorsameth wrote: What happens in Belarus, Poland or Hungary has very little effect outside their country. What happens in the US resonates throughout the western world. Yeah, no. SCOTUS rulings don't affect *insert EU country. I would love to hear how Heller vs DC has affected you. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:29 Wegandi wrote: 2) Reid myopically destroying the filibuster. Democrats you did this to yourself in the attempt to transiently get a few things done during Obama's tenure. You reap what you sow as they say. Absolute fucking bollocks. This argument on morality has been presented a thousand times, and it's been dishonest and manipulative every time. And in politics, it always, conveniently, just happens that Democrats seem to get what they deserve every time Republicans fuck over the good faith of the system. The other way around and it's the socialist communist Democrats come to destroy the USA as we know it, and they also deserve to get fucked over then too. Funny how that works. Republicans are due to reap what they've sewn and wait until the election to make their SCOTUS pick. Period. They set the precedent. They're the ones who hemmed and hawed and got all high and mighty about SCOTUS nominations in proximity to an election, and they got what they wanted. They're the ones who get to sit on ass until we find out in 2 months who our next president will be. Anything less is the same raping of good faith that they're really known for. On September 20 2020 08:36 Wegandi wrote: Yeah, no. SCOTUS rulings don't affect *insert EU country. I would love to hear how Heller vs DC has affected you. He's literally explaining why people in other countries might have an interest in US politics. SCOTUS aside, you know they're right. Don't be such a prick about it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:22 Mohdoo wrote: This is similar to what Obama said, which I haven't seen any arguments against yet. It feels like the basic premise of once you do something one way, you must do it that way the next time, or we simply have no system. “Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in,” Obama wrote in a statement. “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment,” he said, adding that the legitimacy of American courts and democracy depend on the equal application of this standard. “As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard,” Obama said. This is actually not the standard though, and the protestations raised above are trying really hard to find what's different this time, with poor effect. If Obama was being consistent in 2016 he would have known the chance of him getting his appointment in was very small. And maybe he did. But he wasn't very honest about it. So he picked a "moderate" to try and raise political pressure on Republicans. It didn't work. What is most distressing but predictable about this is how those who are (understandably) frustrated turn the heat by claiming this is a new assault on the system. This only makes things worse. It would really suck to be on the losing side here, but it's not new. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 08:50 NewSunshine wrote: Absolute fucking bollocks. This argument on morality has been presented a thousand times, and it's been dishonest and manipulative every time. And in politics, it always, conveniently, just happens that Democrats seem to get what they deserve every time Republicans fuck over the good faith of the system. The other way around and it's the socialist communist Democrats come to destroy the USA as we know it, and they also deserve to get fucked over then too. Funny how that works. Republicans are due to reap what they've sewn and wait until the election to make their SCOTUS pick. Period. They set the precedent. They're the ones who hemmed and hawed and got all high and mighty about SCOTUS nominations in proximity to an election, and they got what they wanted. They're the ones who get to sit on ass until we find out in 2 months who our next president will be. Anything less is the same raping of good faith that they're really known for. He's literally explaining why people in other countries might have an interest in US politics. SCOTUS aside, you know they're right. Don't be such a prick about it. Morality? I'm talking about practicality. None of this would matter if the Democrats could filibuster until the election, but they themselves are to blame for destroying it. Blame Reid for being a dumb doofus. The Democrats always do this. They are politically inept doofuses who continuously do dumb myopic shit and then complain when inevitably the other party gets in power and uses what they just used/destroyed against them. It's hilarious every time. There's maybe like 2 moral politicians on the entire Potomac, so, come on, morality lol? Interest, ok? I can perhaps get behind that, but the folks in this thread are way beyond interest. They seem more invested than like 50% of our own citizens which is beyond reason as folks in EU states are barely affected by US policies and most of that has to do with trade and foreign entanglements, not internal matters like SCOTUS rulings, regulatory schemas, etc. So, please, spare me your piety. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 09:16 Introvert wrote: This is actually not the standard though, and the protestations raised above are trying really hard to find what's different this time, with poor effect. If Obama was being consistent in 2016 he would have known the chance of him getting his appointment in was very small. And maybe he did. But he wasn't very honest about it. So he picked a "moderate" to try and raise political pressure on Republicans. It didn't work. What is most distressing but predictable about this is how those who are (understandably) frustrated turn the heat by claiming this is a new assault on the system. This only makes things worse. It would really suck to be on the losing side here, but it's not new. I don’t think I understand. What makes this different? Are you just saying “of course we’ll take what we can get” or are you saying there is something else? | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
No doubt he wants to rush it because he fears the election but rushing this through i think could,besides dividing and polarizing the country even more,also hurt him in the elections. Its also kinda risky for him in another way,the more traditional conservatives tolerated trump because he could get things through,once this apointment is through what else is there to gain from trump? If he waits then that could be an argument for the more traditional republican politicians and voters to keep supporting him because there will be a nomination at stake after the election. If he gets it through before the election then maybe some of the conservatives see no good reason to support him anymore. Though this would more or less asume the traditional conservatives thinking that trump could win,which is far from certain. Maybe they see it as their last change because they fear defeat in the election but even in that case i think the cons for pushing this through before the election far outweight the pro,s for the traditional conservatives. So ya,my money is on no apointment before the election. (edited post to add something). @below:yes 6-3 would be to much,it would be bad for the country as a whole in many aspects. It wont get through i am reasonably sure about that but then again you can never know for sure these days. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:07 pmh wrote: It seems unlikely to me that trump will get his apointment through. I dont see the gains as there is already a conservative majority and there is a lot to loose. It would devide the country even more then it is already. No doubt he wants to rush it because he fears the election but rushing this through i think could besides dividing and polarizing the country even more also hurt him in the elections. So ya,my money is on no apointment before the election. To me what seems weird is that it basically guarantees the court ends up packed. A 6-3 supreme court is completely untenable. I would support every single thing short of violence to unravel the damage. Add another 20, essentially throwing the whole thing in the dumpster. At the end of the day, a supreme court justice is as important if not more than a presidential election. That's totally nuts. If nothing else, we simply have a totally bizarre system that is way, way too volatile. If democrats take the senate in 2020, I would support anything and everything to completely destroy the court, as it currently exists. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:10 Mohdoo wrote: To me what seems weird is that it basically guarantees the court ends up packed. A 6-3 supreme court is completely untenable. I would support every single thing short of violence to unravel the damage. Add another 20, essentially throwing the whole thing in the dumpster. At the end of the day, a supreme court justice is as important if not more than a presidential election. That's totally nuts. If nothing else, we simply have a totally bizarre system that is way, way too volatile. If democrats take the senate in 2020, I would support anything and everything to completely destroy the court, as it currently exists. Another one of those myopic views. Where does it stop? When Dems lose majority GOP will pack and vice versa. All you're arguing for is the total destabilization and dissolution of the system itself. Sure, I guess when you're the loser this makes sense, but unless you want to destroy the whole system this mentality makes little sense. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:20 Wegandi wrote: Another one of those myopic views. Where does it stop? When Dems lose majority GOP will pack and vice versa. All you're arguing for is the total destabilization and dissolution of the system itself. Sure, I guess when you're the loser this makes sense, but unless you want to destroy the whole system this mentality makes little sense. That's fantastic. It will invalidate the court, which is what needs to happen. I would fully support the GOP doing the same thing in the same situation. Look at the issues the supreme court decided in the last 20 years. What a complete shit show. That is not remotely how this country should function. Look around and see how absolutely critically important this seat is to both major parties. Is that not fucked to you? Do you not see this as more important than a presidential election? The idea that these weird lifelong appointments happen basically at random is totally nuts. Since there is likely no core system or "patch notes" to fix this current system, this entire ordeal has shown me it just needs to get torpedo'd. You should see democrats shitting on the entire institution as a good thing. It was a broken system for a long time. I am sure you are aware of how many major issues were settled at the supreme court. Is that ideal to you? | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:24 Mohdoo wrote: That's fantastic. It will invalidate the court, which is what needs to happen. I would fully support the GOP doing the same thing in the same situation. Look at the issues the supreme court decided in the last 20 years. What a complete shit show. That is not remotely how this country should function. Look around and see how absolutely critically important this seat is to both major parties. Is that not fucked to you? Do you not see this as more important than a presidential election? The idea that these weird lifelong appointments happen basically at random is totally nuts. Since there is likely no core system or "patch notes" to fix this current system, this entire ordeal has shown me it just needs to get torpedo'd. You should see democrats shitting on the entire institution as a good thing. It was a broken system for a long time. I am sure you are aware of how many major issues were settled at the supreme court. Is that ideal to you? You say this now since you're in the loser position, but I didn't hear any of this from you when your side got all sorts of things through this system. It sounds hollow and self-serving. You got what you wanted from the SCOTUS, then the other side won, so let's tear it down. I can buy this coming from someone on my side since we hated it when both sides do it, but coming from you? Yeah, ok. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:30 Wegandi wrote: You say this now since you're in the loser position, but I didn't hear any of this from you when your side got all sorts of things through this system. It sounds hollow and self-serving. You got what you wanted from the SCOTUS, then the other side won, so let's tear it down. I can buy this coming from someone on my side since we hated it when both sides do it, but coming from you? Yeah, ok. I can understand why it is convenient to try to paint me as just salty, but I have railed against the supreme court in this thread many times, long before RBG's passing. How about rather than say "u mad lmao" address the ideas I'm putting forth? How important would you consider this seat? Lets say a presidential election is a 100, what number would you attribute to a supreme court seat? The supreme court deciding DACA, gay marriage and Obamacare were all terrible things. It allowed our representatives to completely sidestep the issue and fail to govern. Democracy suffered in each ruling. When representatives aren't responsible for governing, they become media personalities. Compare our current political landscape to 40 years ago and tell me we're in a better place. The court has not been 6-3 as long as I have been alive. The major rulings always had a conservative when democrats won. When it is 6-3, the entire dynamic is completely different. Are you under the impression conservatives would say "so it goes" to a 6-3? When every major issue is decided by the supreme court, that means 1 party essentially has control of the country for 20 years, aside from executive orders. Edit: I think you should also keep in mind that neither of us have any power or influence or even involvement in this. We are just people talking on a forum. I don't have a benefit to pretending to think this or think that for this or that reason. I won't be held to this and neither will you. This is a conversation, not a debate. Nothing will happen, regardless of what points you or I make. It is important to keep in mind how completely inconsequential these conversations are because it allows us to appreciate them more fully. It isn't important to me that you believe I am coming from a genuine place. These relationships we build on TL will never be measured, examined or judged. We are just people having conversations. I don't think you should see this nearly as confrontational as you would need to to say you don't "buy" what I am saying. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
On September 20 2020 09:57 Mohdoo wrote: I don’t think I understand. What makes this different? Are you just saying “of course we’ll take what we can get” or are you saying there is something else? I'm saying it's not all that different. If a party controls the constitutionally required institutions, they generally put their people on bench. If there's a split, a nominee is generally rejected at that time. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 20 2020 10:51 Introvert wrote: I'm saying it's not all that different. If a party controls the constitutionally required institutions, they generally put their people on bench. If there's a split, a nominee is generally rejected at that time. I don't think the resultant dynamics are a question to anyone. No one is asking how this system typically functions. If we were to open our eyes for about 8 seconds, it would be pretty clear. The topic is the ethics of the situation. The question is whether the actions are ethical, not whether they are assumed as a result of human nature. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32755 Posts
Barrett has generated perhaps the most interest in conservative circles. A devout Roman Catholic, she was a legal scholar at Notre Dame Law School in Indiana before Trump appointed her to the 7th Circuit in 2017. Abortion-rights groups have pointed to Barrett’s conservative religious views and said that as a judge, she would likely vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Lagoa has served on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for less than a year after Trump appointed her and the Senate confirmed her in an 80-15 vote. Prior to that, she spent less than a year in her previous position as the first Latina on the Florida Supreme Court, after more than a decade as a judge on an intermediate appeals court. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/trump-will-nominate-a-woman-next-week-to-succeed-ginsburg-on-supreme-court-idUSKCN26A0IM I think even Trump realizes rocking the gender balance on the court wouldn't be a great look in today's political climate. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g7285 shahzam511 FrodaN145 ArmadaUGS77 NeuroSwarm69 Mew2King62 JuggernautJason49 ViBE41 PPMD8 |
|
OSC
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
