EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 359
| 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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2018 21:55 farvacola wrote: The reasonable plan is to advocate for and enact legislation that gives effect to the platform goals. This whole "justify everything you do before you do it" ploy is what keeps shit-eating Republicans and Democrats in Congress who do the exact opposite. that does not constitute a necessarily reasonable plan, given the platform goals nature. and no, it's false that the "justify everything" is what keeps bad people in office. and you seem to be contradicting yourself since you say that's not what they do anyways. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2018 22:06 farvacola wrote: While I'm not surprised that you don't understand how routinely requiring all advocates for social programs to a priori justify their position allows folks who never have to justify their war hawkish, clientalistic ideas from controlling the establishment, I take solace in knowing that formalistic robots are not the way of the future for some time. you're ignoring that I require EVERYONE to justify all their programs. or you're just talking past me; and repsonded to me without actually considering my stance, and responded to me but were actually talking entirely to/about people other than me. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2018 22:06 farvacola wrote: While I'm not surprised that you don't understand how routinely requiring all advocates for social programs to a priori justify their position allows folks who never have to justify their war hawkish, clientalistic ideas from controlling the establishment, I take solace in knowing that formalistic robots are not the way of the future for some time. And legislating is a collaborative effort. Having 435 elected reps show up with their own special plan they promised to their voters isn’t any more likely to lead to legislative action. It likely gets in the way more than it helps. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
Edit: A lot of this is negotiation 101, always keep an eye on your BATNA :D | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
I thought this was pretty cute. Doesn't seem like he's particularly bummer about losing honestly, like maybe he kinda felt like he had to keep going because it was what he did and now he can do something else with his life. Also a good reminder that Democrats are all on the same side, most of the time. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 27 2018 10:42 xDaunt wrote: Uh, no. Slavery very clearly was constitutional notwithstanding abolitionist measures taken to circumscribe it at the convention. Currently Slavery is very unconstitutional back then it was very much constitutional. Which just gives away what conservatives love to spout shit out about. The whole the constitution is an unchanging document instead of the living document which is suppose to change with our society, it's a reflection of what we're suppose to hold in somewhat agreement. It simply can never be an unchanging definition because we use common law not civil law, our heavy use of precedence to decide cases means that how we read the law changes all the time. It also gives alot of power to the supreme court as once it's set in the supreme court pretty much only the supreme court can change it which will take a different enough case that has overlap to address, part of the challenge can come from congress by drafting a law challenging the ruling but that's pretty rare. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2018 22:47 semantics wrote: Currently Slavery is very unconstitutional back then it was very much constitutional. Which just gives away what conservatives love to spout shit out about. The whole the constitution is an unchanging document instead of the living document which is suppose to change with our society, it's a reflection of what we're suppose to hold in somewhat agreement. It simply can never be an unchanging definition because we use common law not civil law, our heavy use of precedence to decide cases means that how we read the law changes all the time. It also gives alot of power to the supreme court as once it's set in the supreme court pretty much only the supreme court can change it which will take a different enough case that has overlap to address, part of the challenge can come from congress by drafting a law challenging the ruling but that's pretty rare. You may want to update your analysis in light of the 13th Amendment. And you may want to consider how all of the other constitutional amendments impact your analysis. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2018 21:47 zlefin wrote: it's nto my district, so I haven' tlooked closely. personally I didn't much like the listed platform of the winner because it felt disingenuous, akin to populism. so I hope they've got an actual reasonable plan to implement rather than just a bunch of ill thought out bluster or a poor plan. Does your district have a competitive primary this time around? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2018 23:08 JimmiC wrote: Agreed, it seems so short sighted to use negative ad's and attacks of people within your own party. It may be effective to win the primaries but I think it a huge negative for the party itself. After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
the presidential nomination (and to a lesser extent, state-level races) are a little different since they gotta hit more geography. so there's a practical limit to how much you could condense those timeframes as well. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
2. The State’s extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment. Abood erred in concluding otherwise, and stare decisis cannot support it. Abood is therefore overruled. Janus decision Excellent decision! No more compulsory union due collection from objecting public sector employees. The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. So it appears the burdensome opt-out and re-up every year provisions present in some states (or might've served as a basis in this decision nationally) are also gone. I think this concludes the major decisions I was watching for this June. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 27 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote: After November, the Democrats should try to reach some sort of agreement to condense the primary season. The 2008 and 2016 death march sucked for everyone. Plus it costs a mint to campaign for that long, which only helps folks that are willing to accept corporate donations. isn't that mostly an issue of state law though? I thoguht it was mostly state law that set when the primaries are. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
