EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3470
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Donald Trump has promised to put forward a female nominee in the coming week to fill the supreme court vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pushing the Republican-controlled Senate to consider the pick without delay. Taking the stage at a North Carolina rally to chants of “Fill that seat”, the president said he would nominate his selection despite Democrats’ objections. After conducting what he joked was a “very scientific poll” of the Fayetteville crowd as to whether supporters wanted a man or a woman, he declared the choice would be “a very talented, very brave woman”. “I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.” He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose. ... The president this month added 20 more names to his roster of potential court nominees, and aides in recent days have focused on a short list heavy on female candidates, according to four White House aides and officials close to the process. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. The good: 1. Looks like he didn't exclude men a priori; it just played out that way by whatever criteria he had. 2. It was a lot more timely, not coming two years before a seat was even up for replacement. The bad: 1. Lots of Trumpian bluster in how it was communicated. The whole "I like women much more" thing really rubs me the wrong way. 2. Honestly, probably would have been better if he didn't say it at all. Even with mitigating factors, it's unnecessary. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On January 31 2022 09:11 JimmiC wrote: The American right is much more aligned than the left just because how far it is over. In almost no other country in tge world would Sanders and Biden be in the same party let alone Manchin. But yes it was hyperboyle, there are some differnces though becoming less and less as Trump accuses them of RINO and tries to primary any one who does not kiss the ring. Bernie is actually an independent, he just ran in the dem presidential primaries cuz he wouldn't have a chance otherwise. And just because people criticize the "RINOs" and Trump tries to primary them doesn't mean there aren't still differences, in fact it shows the opposite. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On January 31 2022 10:24 JimmiC wrote: Ok AOC. Go back and read, I said its becoming less because Trump is actively trying to remove the differnces. But those differnces are just not agreeing with his whims than ideoligical since its not like Trump is actually a conservative in most ways or religious. You also said "the American right is much more aligned than the left." But the existence of moderates alongside people like trump shows that there is a wide gap within the party, similar to the gap between AOC and Manchin. As for the trend you claim, I could point to AOC winning her primary and say "look dems are getting primaried because the party is becoming more of a monolith." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35154 Posts
On January 31 2022 13:50 Doc.Rivers wrote: I don't see the relevance of comparing the US middle and right to other countries. When comparing the ideological variance between the American Right and American Left, it's meaningful to point out just how right the "left" gets. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16318 Posts
On January 31 2022 09:16 JimmiC wrote: Your assumption is different because of Trump or Black? And again ZERO outrage, compared to pages upon pages. You can decide for yourself if it is because of the race, or partisanship. Edit: or falling prey to "the media" you take in outrage machine. I for one can only reiterate that my participation in this thread is quite a recent development. The thing trump did is not better in any way. The only difference being that I would expect more/better from democrats and that it would be a positive result in my eyes if such actions would make trump lose some voters. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2696 Posts
On January 31 2022 09:13 LegalLord wrote: The Trump pledge for a woman SCJ, by the way: The good: 1. Looks like he didn't exclude men a priori; it just played out that way by whatever criteria he had. 2. It was a lot more timely, not coming two years before a seat was even up for replacement. The bad: 1. Lots of Trumpian bluster in how it was communicated. The whole "I like women much more" thing really rubs me the wrong way. 2. Honestly, probably would have been better if he didn't say it at all. Even with mitigating factors, it's unnecessary. Why give him the benefit of the doubt on the bolded part and call it good? I don't understand how that is different from what you have been arguing against for like 10 pages of poats. By what you posted, he made an a priori decision on the spot to exclude all men from the post (he said he didn't have a candidate in mind). Whether you exclude candidates 2 years in advance or two days, it doesn't make a difference to the outcome, you've still excluded candidates. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's very different from what Biden did and I'm okay with the way they did the selection. In the sense that there was no way they wouldn't sit an arch-conservative judge that would work to undermine roe v Wade and foil as many progressive initiatives as possible. At least it added a bit of diversity to the team. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9122 Posts
On January 31 2022 05:52 LegalLord wrote: It often seems to be that one of the effects, perhaps even purposes, of this particular brand of identity politics (prioritizing identity as a virtue over any other, often more relevant, character traits) is to be divisive and to accuse others of being racist / the opposition / bad. Judging specifically by where the posters within this thread lie, it seems that liberals (or, alternatively, Democrat party-liners) are deeply enamored with this particular brand of discriminatory appointment, whereas you'll get strong opposition from both the right (moderate and hardcore, both mostly underrepresented due to bans) and the hard left (e.g. people like GH and Drone). I find this interesting in light of, for example, GH's previous argument that "the left should be treating Democrats as the opposition" despite what should seem at the surface-level to be common ground. That interpretation at least seems pretty strongly consistent with who tends to cry "right wing racists - SAD!" at opposition to this, versus the reality of the general political alignment of those who oppose it. Nah, it's good intentions all the way down, I just don't think someone that mistakes opposition to identity essentialism for racism understands the values they think they are defending. For the record, the logic of this approach also excludes the possibility of appointing two black women in a row because "they just had their turn" despite not being a hivemind, which is not okay with me. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4730 Posts
Do black men feel represented on USMC by Clarance Thomas given he is most conservative and blacks overwhelmingly vote democrats? Do republican black women (i am sure there are some) feel represented by Kamala Harris? And will feel that way about Biden nominee? Do white liberal men feel represented by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito? Do republican white women feel represented by Kagan? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 31 2022 17:36 EnDeR_ wrote: Why give him the benefit of the doubt on the bolded part and call it good? Probably because it's directly supported by the article and deliberately included in the excerpt I provided. I also make it clear that I am, overall, not a fan of it. But as I gave a full consideration to the good and the bad of the Biden announcement, I will do the same for Trump. If you are inclined to see any deviation from full praise of Biden and full condemnation of Trump as a problem, then you will obviously see fault in that. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5574 Posts
On January 31 2022 23:45 JimmiC wrote: I think for a lot of people it is that the conservative outrage machine gets going but they dont say actually why they are upset and it pulls others in. They use a much more appropriate reasoning for their outrage than is true but show their true colours with past and future actions. The thing with SCJ is it is and has not been for a long time a strickly merit based appointmemt. I mean how exactly would you seperate the top 100 judges on merit alone amyhow. If you agree diversity is fair as part of the criteria and it is used not as ham fisted as tge strawman suggests this wont be a problem keep in mind this is not the 100 meter dash where every judge is rank ordered by preformance alone to begin with. There is a ton of subjective measures and always have been. It is not that it has to match demograpgics exactly it is that it os a considerstion of existimg group dynamics when you add a new member. Perhaps they should separate them based on a 100 meter dash after all? It would be a merit-based solution and, on average, would give Black candidates an advantage. :-P | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On January 31 2022 14:15 Gahlo wrote: When comparing the ideological variance between the American Right and American Left, it's meaningful to point out just how right the "left" gets. Well if the US is further right than other countries, it would stand to reason that the furthest right point in US politics is further to the right than in other countries. So the ideological variance b/w US right & left could still be the same. At bottom the argument I'm responding to is just another attempt to associate all of the American right with the worst aspects of trump. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
