|
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 September 26 2020 15:34 Starlightsun wrote:
Who else but Trump could so willingly and effectively undermine the whole country's trust in our election process? Republicans are going to be afraid of mass mail-in ballot "fraud", while Democrats will be afraid of having those ballots thrown out or suppressed by the administration and its cronies. Regardless of the extent of Russia's influence in our politics, their objectives are being met so nicely that it's not even funny.
Why are you blaming Trump for "willingly and effectively undermin[ing] the whole country's trust in our election process," when you go on to show Democrats are willingly and effectively undermining the whole country's trust in the election process by alleging ballots will be thrown out and suppressed by the administration and its cronies. You are the pot calling the kettle black.
|
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump.
|
On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump.
Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not.
|
On September 26 2020 15:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................ Why do you call it a rush? There's a vacancy, and the President and Senate are from the same party. You'll have to explain what you mean by "a majority of the republican cacus." I'll say a final time, the President and Senate are from the same party. In Obama's tenure, the American People sent a majority of senators from the opposite party to bring their advice and consent to Obama nominees. They didn't consent. That's not a hurdle, and there's no reason for delay. Win the Senate next time if you want to do something about it?
I love how you don't worry in the slightest that these people held the absolute opposite position in 2016. You prove once again that you have zero interest in anything but ramming through your reactionary politics. You, and US reactionaries in general (i don't think they actually are conservatives) have zero principles. You especially don't care about any of the arguments you made yesterday if the sides are flipped in an absolutely similar situation today.
Also, the american people don't send senators. The states do. You have a bunch of tiny states full of reactionary fundamentalists, and they are absurdly overrepresented in the senate (and electoral college, too).
AND those senators didn't not consent, they refused to even hear Obamas nominees because the turtle is bent on making US politics as shitty as possible.
I think i slowly wish the US would just split up. Have a country of reactionary fundamentalists, and a country of sane people. The sane people country could give asylum to anyone wanting to flee your republican shithole.
|
On September 26 2020 15:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................ Why do you call it a rush? There's a vacancy, and the President and Senate are from the same party. You'll have to explain what you mean by "a majority of the republican cacus." I'll say a final time, the President and Senate are from the same party. In Obama's tenure, the American People sent a majority of senators from the opposite party to bring their advice and consent to Obama nominees. They didn't consent. That's not a hurdle, and there's no reason for delay. Win the Senate next time if you want to do something about it?
I meant Republican caucus, misspelling
cau·cus
a conference of members of a legislative body who belong to a particular party or faction.
Like it has been posted before i will let 17 republican senators speak for me
+ Show Spoiler +Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):
“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.
Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.
In 1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any potential nominees until the campaign season was over.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )
Sen. Lindsey Graham justifies his treatment of Merrick Garland: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election"
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”Saddened by Justice Scalia's passing. The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President
The republican party has stated time time again that the American people should have a voice if a opening is in an election year. They have even said thay would not nominate a trump justice. We are 40 something days to election. But of corse we all know the American people should only have a voice when it is the dems. From there own words trump should have no right to seat a justice if he loses cause that is what the American people want.
Edit
they also never gave a no to garland. They where to afraid to say no or even give him a hearing cause they acully liked garland and would have to reason to deny him other then we dont want the black man to seat a justice
|
On September 26 2020 16:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump. Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not.
I mean, I don't really have a horse in this race. Given the information tossed around this thread, I'm most likely to align myself with GH (and others') perspective that the whole system is fucked, and both parties are trying to abuse the system as best they can to align it to their favour. While this means I'm very willing to believe that the dems are also doing some shady shit, in this specific scenario I've seen more obvious indications that Trump is trying to set up and push a narrative that suits him and his goals, and a cry of "But the dems!" shouldn't detract from that.
Given your final sentence, it should be fair to understand that I trust your judgement in this regard as well as I would JimmiC's.
|
On September 26 2020 17:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 15:57 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................ Why do you call it a rush? There's a vacancy, and the President and Senate are from the same party. You'll have to explain what you mean by "a majority of the republican cacus." I'll say a final time, the President and Senate are from the same party. In Obama's tenure, the American People sent a majority of senators from the opposite party to bring their advice and consent to Obama nominees. They didn't consent. That's not a hurdle, and there's no reason for delay. Win the Senate next time if you want to do something about it? I love how you don't worry in the slightest that these people held the absolute opposite position in 2016. You prove once again that you have zero interest in anything but ramming through your reactionary politics. You, and US reactionaries in general (i don't think they actually are conservatives) have zero principles. You especially don't care about any of the arguments you made yesterday if the sides are flipped in an absolutely similar situation today. Also, the american people don't send senators. The states do. You have a bunch of tiny states full of reactionary fundamentalists, and they are absurdly overrepresented in the senate (and electoral college, too). AND those senators didn't not consent, they refused to even hear Obamas nominees because the turtle is bent on making US politics as shitty as possible. I think i slowly wish the US would just split up. Have a country of reactionary fundamentalists, and a country of sane people. The sane people country could give asylum to anyone wanting to flee your republican shithole.
The only thing I'm hoping to prove is that both parties have contingents that seek to delegitimize the election results. And if you're so intent on denigrating the United STATES of America, go be a dear and actually advocate for the secession of the large states from the small and the small states from the large. The American People are scattered across the 50 states, and don't pretend that the problem is small states with reactionary fundamentalists unless you seek a division of the country.
|
On September 26 2020 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 16:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump. Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not. I mean, I don't really have a horse in this race. Given the information tossed around this thread, I'm most likely to align myself with GH (and others') perspective that the whole system is fucked, and both parties are trying to abuse the system as best they can to align it to their favour. While this means I'm very willing to believe that the dems are also doing some shady shit, in this specific scenario I've seen more obvious indications that Trump is trying to set up and push a narrative that suits him and his goals, and a cry of "But the dems!" shouldn't detract from that.
I'm 51% in favor of the proposition that the country is screwed even if Trump is re-elected (and I lean towards voting Trump). Trust me when I say that I'm very sympathetic to your perspective. I can't attach myself to the current elected leadership of the GOP, but like you, I see the other side as a slightly to moderately worse option.
|
On September 26 2020 17:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 26 2020 16:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump. Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not. I mean, I don't really have a horse in this race. Given the information tossed around this thread, I'm most likely to align myself with GH (and others') perspective that the whole system is fucked, and both parties are trying to abuse the system as best they can to align it to their favour. While this means I'm very willing to believe that the dems are also doing some shady shit, in this specific scenario I've seen more obvious indications that Trump is trying to set up and push a narrative that suits him and his goals, and a cry of "But the dems!" shouldn't detract from that. I'm 51% in favor of the proposition that the country is screwed even if Trump is re-elected (and I lean towards voting Trump). Trust me when I say that I'm very sympathetic to your perspective. I can't attach myself to the current elected leadership of the GOP, but like you, I see the other side as a slightly to moderately worse option.
I don't envy you this position.
At least in my country, my vote is basically worthless but I can vote for a third party and pretend I tried. Fortunately, the choices made in spite of me at least don't seem as dire as the ones in the US.
I do find it interesting that Trump feels like a tangible threat to democracy, though. Part of me wants the next republican nomination to run under a banner that acknowledges how fucking awful Trump has been in a lot of ways. "Like Trump, but not stupid!" would be an acceptable tagline from my perspective. I'm also curious, if dems win this upcoming election, how the republican party at large will regard Trump, as trump losing as incumbent should be a pretty big sign that his favour has waned, and not that more of the country -actually- flipped dem.
To be clear, I believe the system is robust enough to stop Trump before he actually breaks democracy, I just find it worrying because there's no clear line on 'too far' and noone will know if the system is robust enough until it is too late.
|
On September 26 2020 17:47 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 17:43 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 26 2020 16:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump. Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not. I mean, I don't really have a horse in this race. Given the information tossed around this thread, I'm most likely to align myself with GH (and others') perspective that the whole system is fucked, and both parties are trying to abuse the system as best they can to align it to their favour. While this means I'm very willing to believe that the dems are also doing some shady shit, in this specific scenario I've seen more obvious indications that Trump is trying to set up and push a narrative that suits him and his goals, and a cry of "But the dems!" shouldn't detract from that. I'm 51% in favor of the proposition that the country is screwed even if Trump is re-elected (and I lean towards voting Trump). Trust me when I say that I'm very sympathetic to your perspective. I can't attach myself to the current elected leadership of the GOP, but like you, I see the other side as a slightly to moderately worse option. I don't envy you this position. At least in my country, my vote is basically worthless but I can vote for a third party and pretend I tried. Fortunately, the choices made in spite of me at least don't seem as dire as the ones in the US. I do find it interesting that Trump feels like a tangible threat to democracy, though. Part of me wants the next republican nomination to run under a banner that acknowledges how fucking awful Trump has been in a lot of ways. "Like Trump, but not stupid!" would be an acceptable tagline from my perspective. I'm also curious, if dems win this upcoming election, how the republican party at large will regard Trump, as trump losing as incumbent should be a pretty big sign that his favour has waned, and not that more of the country -actually- flipped dem. To be clear, I believe the system is robust enough to stop Trump before he actually breaks democracy, I just find it worrying because there's no clear line on 'too far' and noone will know if the system is robust enough until it is too late.
Agreed. “Like Trump, but not stupid” is the no nonsense form of a future GOP slogan. Also, I don’t really know the current political situation in Canada all that well to comment on the situation up there.
|
The US is going to have a conservative court for decades regardless of whether Democrats win the presidency and a senate majority or not. They have no way to correct it sooner considering their senate hopefuls aren't on board.
“I'll evaluate any proposals based on whether they'll help us return the judiciary to an independent body free from politics. At this time, I have doubts that expanding the Supreme Court would do that,” said Maine Democrat Sara Gideon, who’s in a close race with GOP Sen. Susan Collins.
Gideon’s skepticism about expanding the Supreme Court is shared by at least five other Democratic Senate challengers. A spokesman for Mark Kelly in Arizona confirmed he opposes adding new justices to the court. Jon Ossoff, who is challenging GOP Sen. David Perdue in Georgia, said Democrats shouldn’t expand the court “just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.” Al Gross, an independent candidate running with Democrats’ support in Alaska, said on MSNBC Wednesday that he opposed adding new justices.
These candidates, looking to prevail in key swing states, join sitting moderate Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona who oppose adding more justices.
www.politico.com
Democrats aren't going to even try to stop the nomination from going through and have no resolution for a bunk court besides never losing again and waiting ~20 years.
|
On September 26 2020 18:35 GreenHorizons wrote:The US is going to have a conservative court for decades regardless of whether Democrats win the presidency and a senate majority or not. They have no way to correct it sooner considering their senate hopefuls aren't on board.
Show nested quote +“I'll evaluate any proposals based on whether they'll help us return the judiciary to an independent body free from politics. At this time, I have doubts that expanding the Supreme Court would do that,” said Maine Democrat Sara Gideon, who’s in a close race with GOP Sen. Susan Collins.
Gideon’s skepticism about expanding the Supreme Court is shared by at least five other Democratic Senate challengers. A spokesman for Mark Kelly in Arizona confirmed he opposes adding new justices to the court. Jon Ossoff, who is challenging GOP Sen. David Perdue in Georgia, said Democrats shouldn’t expand the court “just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.” Al Gross, an independent candidate running with Democrats’ support in Alaska, said on MSNBC Wednesday that he opposed adding new justices.
These candidates, looking to prevail in key swing states, join sitting moderate Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona who oppose adding more justices. www.politico.comDemocrats aren't going to even try to stop the nomination from going through and have no resolution for a bunk court besides never losing again and waiting ~20 years.
Republicans have been by far the most elected to the Presidency since Nixon. 6-3 isn't even near the 8-1 and 7-2 the GOP held for a long time in the SCOTUS. It's not surprising that the party that has had the most Presidential wins since 1968 (68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000, 2004, 2016) (8 to 5 GOP) has had the majority of SCOTUS appointments during that time. 6-3 is not some unprecedented thing, hell, 6-3 isn't even that bad considering the history since Nixon.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm
|
Don't really disagree with you. Mostly just pointing out that despite Democrats running on fearing Republicans, they don't actually have a way/plan to stop the SCOTUS stuff they are fearmongering about.
Same goes for the idea of a Trump coup. If he actually did it, we'd have Biden out trying to convince protesters to obey the fascists and telling them violent resistance is unjustified. But for Trump being so contemptable on a personal level (shitting on POW's and such) to military personnel, there'd be no hope within liberal framing to stop him.
|
On September 26 2020 17:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 17:39 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 26 2020 16:58 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 16:17 Fleetfeet wrote:
I believe they're referring to Trump's seemingly intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting inciting fear in both parties. Republicans being afraid of the voter fraud Trump is telling them about, Democrats being afraid of an allegedly dem-favoured method of voting being suppressed by the afforementioned intentional attempts to sabotage mail-in voting.
Both of those instances of fear are being represented as generated by Trump. Your points have equal mirror versions. Democrats have been hyping the danger of political appointees manipulating mail-in votes, because they want to delegitimize the results of the election. Democrats have also been trying to minimize the historic proportions of mail-in voting, falsely claiming that the danger of ballot harvesting and fraud will operate at the margins seen in elections where there are not high amounts of absentee voting. The only difference here is whether or not you're partisan in favor of Democrats or not. I mean, I don't really have a horse in this race. Given the information tossed around this thread, I'm most likely to align myself with GH (and others') perspective that the whole system is fucked, and both parties are trying to abuse the system as best they can to align it to their favour. While this means I'm very willing to believe that the dems are also doing some shady shit, in this specific scenario I've seen more obvious indications that Trump is trying to set up and push a narrative that suits him and his goals, and a cry of "But the dems!" shouldn't detract from that. I'm 51% in favor of the proposition that the country is screwed even if Trump is re-elected (and I lean towards voting Trump). Trust me when I say that I'm very sympathetic to your perspective. I can't attach myself to the current elected leadership of the GOP, but like you, I see the other side as a slightly to moderately worse option.
The problem at the root seems to be that both sides think the other is now actively trying to destroy the USA, rather than both sides trying to do their best from differing points of view.
I'm lucky that UK politics hasn't gotten that toxic yet but it has shades at times. I strongly disagree with the UK Conservative Party on... uh... almost everything, but I believe that most of them are ultimately in it to make the UK a better place for everyone. It makes decisions I disagree with a lot easier to swallow.
It also helps that they don't get filthy rich out of politics for the most part. Our MPs make a very good living, but it's only the very top who ever make much money out of it and that's usually from after-office opportunities.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 22:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
Don't really disagree with you. Mostly just pointing out that despite Democrats running on fearing Republicans, they don't actually have a way/plan to stop the SCOTUS stuff they are fearmongering about.
Same goes for the idea of a Trump coup. If he actually did it, we'd have Biden out trying to convince protesters to obey the fascists and telling them violent resistance is unjustified. But for Trump being so contemptable on a personal level (shitting on POW's and such) to military personnel, there'd be no hope within liberal framing to stop him. You do understand your entire second paragraph is fan fiction correct? + Show Spoiler +
And fleet saying you trust me as much as Danglars is the worst insult I've ever heard. I don't think the American system is not broken, I just don't believe that GH is at all accurate in how or why. What is strange to me is that people the GHs perspective is that different from the far right trumpnsupport, you have different names.for the different groups but the root message is almost always the same as is the burden of proof " if it is against the dems it is true".
Many of you mistake this that I'm a dem or support them completely. It is far from the truth, it is just that so many people here are completely willing to call out the obvious bullshit when it comes from a right spin but not the same when it comes from a "left" spin. And that hurts the left far more than all the right stuff people get so worked up about.
Frankly, I think the first paragraph is the priority for Democrats to reconcile with their politics. + Show Spoiler +Trump's far more likely to "win" a drawn out strategic/legal battle in a close election (if he doesn't win outright) than try to mount some sort of military coup though. Not that Democrats have a real strategy to deal with either.
|
On September 26 2020 18:35 GreenHorizons wrote:The US is going to have a conservative court for decades regardless of whether Democrats win the presidency and a senate majority or not. They have no way to correct it sooner considering their senate hopefuls aren't on board. Show nested quote +“I'll evaluate any proposals based on whether they'll help us return the judiciary to an independent body free from politics. At this time, I have doubts that expanding the Supreme Court would do that,” said Maine Democrat Sara Gideon, who’s in a close race with GOP Sen. Susan Collins.
Gideon’s skepticism about expanding the Supreme Court is shared by at least five other Democratic Senate challengers. A spokesman for Mark Kelly in Arizona confirmed he opposes adding new justices to the court. Jon Ossoff, who is challenging GOP Sen. David Perdue in Georgia, said Democrats shouldn’t expand the court “just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.” Al Gross, an independent candidate running with Democrats’ support in Alaska, said on MSNBC Wednesday that he opposed adding new justices.
These candidates, looking to prevail in key swing states, join sitting moderate Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona who oppose adding more justices. www.politico.comDemocrats aren't going to even try to stop the nomination from going through and have no resolution for a bunk court besides never losing again and waiting ~20 years.
Democrats don't really care all that much about changing it either; it matters more to them to be able to leverage the deep "unprecedented" badness of this situation to their electoral benefit. Conservative judges, darn it, but at least we didn't let a socialist or two slip through the cracks! It's good cover anyways, because you can always blame the Republicans for not being able to make the progress that you never had any intention of making in the first place.
|
|
|
On September 26 2020 17:08 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 15:57 Danglars wrote:On September 26 2020 12:34 Shingi11 wrote:On September 26 2020 12:25 Danglars wrote:mcturtle wants to ram them trough before it is going to have to be one of the fastest in history You mean hold a vote with the time of consideration before the actual vote being quite common for supreme court nominees? Ram it through before it would have to be fastest appears a long way of saying the timing is measured and normal. Trump was elected president and a majority of Republican Senators won their races to make both constitutional parties to nominations united in control. Trump can literally concede after the mail-in votes are counted, and retire with a solid conservative legacy of 3 originalist supreme court justices. (Libs were already threatening to pack the court and remove the legislative filibuster before RBG's death, so their threats that they're really gonna go crazy now shouldn't be heeded) Why the rush, not a couple of months ago a majority of the republican cacus was in the mind that it was too close to election day to pick a justice. I mean it was like 8 months before election for obama and they where very adamant that the american people would get a voice in the choice. Surely if 8 months before election is far to close to let a vote for a justice a mere 40 days is just................................ Why do you call it a rush? There's a vacancy, and the President and Senate are from the same party. You'll have to explain what you mean by "a majority of the republican cacus." I'll say a final time, the President and Senate are from the same party. In Obama's tenure, the American People sent a majority of senators from the opposite party to bring their advice and consent to Obama nominees. They didn't consent. That's not a hurdle, and there's no reason for delay. Win the Senate next time if you want to do something about it? I meant Republican caucus, misspelling cau·cus a conference of members of a legislative body who belong to a particular party or faction. Like it has been posted before i will let 17 republican senators speak for me + Show Spoiler +Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):
“I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.
Confirming a new Supreme Court Justice during a presidential election year for a vacancy arising that same year is not common in our nation’s history; the last time it happened was in 1932. And it has been almost 130 years since a presidential election year nominee was confirmed for a vacancy arising the same year under divided government as we have today.
In 1992, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and with a Republican in the White House, Vice President Joe Biden said his committee should “seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings” on any potential nominees until the campaign season was over.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election” (This was actually what he said in 2018, doubling down on his previous stance. )
Sen. Lindsey Graham justifies his treatment of Merrick Garland: "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election"
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid have all made statements that the Senate does not have to confirm presidential nominations in an election year. I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “Vice President Biden’s remarks may have been voiced in 1992, but they are entirely applicable to 2016. The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”
Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”Saddened by Justice Scalia's passing. The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President The republican party has stated time time again that the American people should have a voice if a opening is in an election year. They have even said thay would not nominate a trump justice. We are 40 something days to election. But of corse we all know the American people should only have a voice when it is the dems. From there own words trump should have no right to seat a justice if he loses cause that is what the American people want. Edit they also never gave a no to garland. They where to afraid to say no or even give him a hearing cause they acully liked garland and would have to reason to deny him other then we dont want the black man to seat a justice
I posted before that the precedent is not as several Republican senators described it before. Politicians of both parties are going to lie when it suits them. It’s the job of the polity to look both at what each senatorial caucus has said, as well as what each has done.
The Senate sets its own rules on things not particularly described by the constitution. In this case, it withheld its consent by senate majority leader. If you want him to have less power in the action of the Senate, scheduling votes on bills and all the rest, then campaign for bipartisan Senate reform. Your griping about this having to do with the black man in office back then should be seen as an actual gripe that you didn’t win the Senate.
|
On September 26 2020 23:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2020 18:35 GreenHorizons wrote:The US is going to have a conservative court for decades regardless of whether Democrats win the presidency and a senate majority or not. They have no way to correct it sooner considering their senate hopefuls aren't on board. “I'll evaluate any proposals based on whether they'll help us return the judiciary to an independent body free from politics. At this time, I have doubts that expanding the Supreme Court would do that,” said Maine Democrat Sara Gideon, who’s in a close race with GOP Sen. Susan Collins.
Gideon’s skepticism about expanding the Supreme Court is shared by at least five other Democratic Senate challengers. A spokesman for Mark Kelly in Arizona confirmed he opposes adding new justices to the court. Jon Ossoff, who is challenging GOP Sen. David Perdue in Georgia, said Democrats shouldn’t expand the court “just because a justice may be confirmed with whom we disagree on policy.” Al Gross, an independent candidate running with Democrats’ support in Alaska, said on MSNBC Wednesday that he opposed adding new justices.
These candidates, looking to prevail in key swing states, join sitting moderate Democratic senators like Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona who oppose adding more justices. www.politico.comDemocrats aren't going to even try to stop the nomination from going through and have no resolution for a bunk court besides never losing again and waiting ~20 years. Democrats don't really care all that much about changing it either; it matters more to them to be able to leverage the deep "unprecedented" badness of this situation to their electoral benefit. Conservative judges, darn it, but at least we didn't let a socialist or two slip through the cracks! It's good cover anyways, because you can always blame the Republicans for not being able to make the progress that you never had any intention of making in the first place.
They saw how effective Republican's campaigning against the ACA was and seem to have decided they wanted to do that with the SC and maybe healthcare? Just string their voters along like hapless fools without even promising them positive policy they can't deliver on, but stopping the Republican agenda, which they consistently fail at. Whereas Republicans constantly thwart Democrats when they don't impede themselves, like on the public option.
Will be interesting to see if Republicans get the "big payoff" for their decade+ of campaigning against the ACA when the SC takes up the mandate during the lame duck political session.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
