|
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 October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face.
What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not.
|
On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not.
Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete.
User was warned for this post.
|
On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category.
Sorry, I only respond to lazy lumping political movements with the same style of lazy lumping of people.
Saying that the Democrats having been doing anything since the 1930s assumes that they have had a plan for those 100 years. That is factually incorrect and not have political parties function. And if you are not a conservative, I apologize for the mislabeling. But your open hostility towards me pointing out that Jefferson tried to impeach a Supreme Court justice confuses me more given that fact.
And you are right. My side lost, so I am mad at the results. Wasn’t that the point of Trump? To make the liberals mad? To do all the things politicians were scared of doing because it would make people mad? Wasn’t that the plan all along? Are people unhappy that they got what they asked for? Or they want the liberals to be mad, but do nothing with that anger?
|
On October 05 2018 00:44 Simberto wrote:
This whole debate made me wonder why we don't have this problem with overly politicized courts in Germany. On the surface, we require 2/3 majority in both houses to confirm judges, so they have to be accepted by most parties, and not just pushed through by one. Then of course we don't have a two-party system, so they can go into more than two directions if they are political.
But that doesn't really explain it either. Up until Gorsuch, judges in the US required 60 votes. Yet this problem has been apparent earlier already, with the Garland sham during Obamas presidency. From what i can tell, it seems to be mostly that german parties choose not to politicize the courts in the same way the US parties do, to the point where they are more happy with no one being on the court than with someone who isn't completely on their side. So in Germany, parties accept middle-ground candidates, while in the US, they don't. This makes me a bit scared that the same shit that you are doing over there could happen here, too. Because i am quite happy with courts that are widely recognized as being impartial, so everyone can respect their decisions.
Because lets be honest, it doesn't matter how this turns out now. The whole process has discredited the US supreme court totally at this point. No matter if Kav gets confirmed or not, from now on on the courts will never be seen as an impartial arbitrator, but instead as basically a stick that one side of your politics can use to beat the other side with. Which might have been the goal from the start. As far as i can tell, US republicans were very unhappy with the role the supreme court has played for a long time. So turning the court in a partisan tool is totally fine for them, because it makes that court less important.
I am not well versed on Germany politics, but my understanding is it isn't a 2 party system. That's a big part of why it is happening in the US I think, both from a procedure standpoint and from why the judges are so conservative (or liberal).
Like on procedure, in the US you can make any change you want no matter how much it hurts the party out of power (even if it bites you later). But in a multiparty system if you need a coalition to pass legislature, the minority parts of that coalition probably won't want to agree to a bunch of changes that weaken their influence.
|
On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete.
My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper.
|
On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life. On October 04 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:
If supreme court justices can be impeached, are Republicans not setting themselves up for a worse situation when the pendulum inevitably ends up swinging the other direction? Gorsuch is safe, but Kavanaugh appears purely temporary from what I can see. Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not.
So hunger doesn't force one to seek food? Humans are never without material needs that necessarily coerce their decisions and actions. Further, hand-wavey "don't mention non-market activity" sentiments only further undermine your "free market is best market" thesis.
|
On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:
We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life.
[quote]
Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper.
I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them.
|
On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:
We can expect the party leadership and folks like Grassley to charge forward. It is just a question of if people like Flake, Collins and others don’t like what has been turned up by the report and the reporting about BK. There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. And other classmates that are openly saying that he lied under oath about his college life.
[quote]
Funny story. One of the first attempts to impeach a Justice was done by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who felt Samuel Chase’s political views were influencing his rulings. He wasn’t removed from the bench, but it put the fear in him and muted his rulings. So if anyone claims that the Justices can’t be impeached for having strong political views in their decisions, tell them Thomas Jefferson disagrees with that stance. You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath. I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper.
And libertarians use the same reasoning as Communists:
"That isn't really a free market! It doesn't count!"
|
On October 05 2018 00:55 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:44 Simberto wrote:
This whole debate made me wonder why we don't have this problem with overly politicized courts in Germany. On the surface, we require 2/3 majority in both houses to confirm judges, so they have to be accepted by most parties, and not just pushed through by one. Then of course we don't have a two-party system, so they can go into more than two directions if they are political.
But that doesn't really explain it either. Up until Gorsuch, judges in the US required 60 votes. Yet this problem has been apparent earlier already, with the Garland sham during Obamas presidency. From what i can tell, it seems to be mostly that german parties choose not to politicize the courts in the same way the US parties do, to the point where they are more happy with no one being on the court than with someone who isn't completely on their side. So in Germany, parties accept middle-ground candidates, while in the US, they don't. This makes me a bit scared that the same shit that you are doing over there could happen here, too. Because i am quite happy with courts that are widely recognized as being impartial, so everyone can respect their decisions.
Because lets be honest, it doesn't matter how this turns out now. The whole process has discredited the US supreme court totally at this point. No matter if Kav gets confirmed or not, from now on on the courts will never be seen as an impartial arbitrator, but instead as basically a stick that one side of your politics can use to beat the other side with. Which might have been the goal from the start. As far as i can tell, US republicans were very unhappy with the role the supreme court has played for a long time. So turning the court in a partisan tool is totally fine for them, because it makes that court less important. I am not well versed on Germany politics, but my understanding is it isn't a 2 party system. That's a big part of why it is happening in the US I think, both from a procedure standpoint and from why the judges are so conservative (or liberal). Like on procedure, in the US you can make any change you want no matter how much it hurts the party out of power (even if it bites you later). But in a multiparty system if you need a coalition to pass legislature, the minority parts of that coalition probably won't want to agree to a bunch of changes that weaken their influence.
The 2 parties in America are pretty much the same thing as coalitions. Whether or not the alignments make sense is another issue. That's why you have groups in certain parties constantly voting against their own interests, because they get enough of what they want on other issues the party supports.
|
On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2018 23:58 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
You honestly believe that the people on the SCOTUS aren't partisans and don't make rulings a good amount of the time based on their political leanings? Really? Of all the things to admonish, you choose this easily falsifiable qualm? LOL. Let me know when the Democratic SCOTUS' stand up for the 2nd Amendment or the Republican SCOTUS' stand up for the 4th Amendment. I'll be holding my breath.
I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country. I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on. Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them.
I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all.
|
On October 05 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I used to believe that, until the Republicans started stacking the courts with the most conservative Judges they could find. Their plan of shaping the US culture and regulations through the Supreme Court has been overt. They aren’t even shy about it. Right now is a prime example. BK is unpopular with the general public, but they still plan on confirming him. He is a political operative who became a judge and they are still going to confirm him. This judge was not chosen because he represents the views of the majority of this country, but the views of a small fraction of the country.
I find the objection to this viewpoint interesting as well. Conservatives have never been shy about this intent, but now that it has the chance to become reality, they object to their opponents talking about ways to undercut the conservative Supreme Court. That we are supposed to continue to view the court as the neutral, fair minded branch that kept congress and the White House in line. But there is no understanding that the reason the Supreme Court was viewed that way is because the Senate wouldn’t allow Judges like BK onto it. That many judges were approved by the overwhelming majority of the senate. By pushing through folks like BK, conservatives are effectively ending the public’s view of the Supreme Court as sacrosanct. Now it is just another arm of the conservative political machine. Which was always the plan, but for some reason everyone else wasn’t supposed to catch on.
Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them. I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all.
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people?
|
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal.
|
On October 05 2018 01:24 farvacola wrote:
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal.
I don't intend to defend libertarianism, but rather, point out how him presenting his friend as "he had a certain belief system but he abandoned it to be more likable to other people" is a pretty bad reason.
The non agression principle is pretty solid.
|
On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:26 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
Please. The Democrats have loaded the courts since FDR. They've also basically controlled the courts since the 30's as well. Since the ball is on the other foot now there's a bunch of bitching and complaining, but if you stepped outside your lens for a moment and look back at the last 70 years you'll see that what the GOP has been pushing for, for the last 20 years is what the Dems did. They stacked the SCOTUS with partisan judges. Now, the hand that fed them is biting them and you hate it. Don't act like Democratic Presidents since FDR have only appointed non-partisan judges. By the way, I wish Marbury v Madison was never a thing. The SCOTUS has WAY too much power. You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon. And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals. Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them. I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all. So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people?
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology.
On October 05 2018 01:27 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:24 farvacola wrote:
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal. I don't intend to defend libertarianism, but rather, point out how him presenting his friend as "he had a certain belief system but he abandoned it to be more likable to other people" is a pretty bad reason. The non agression principle is pretty solid.
He entered grown up land where people faced adult problems like homelessness and realized that his beliefs formed in high school and college were naive and childish.
|
I seem to be reading some early remarks from senators that there is "nothing we don't already know" in the FBI report. I find that a bit hard to believe. At least as far as I know there was no statement from Garrett (who Ford says she went out with for a while) before this. If he confirms that part of Ford's story and perhaps is even able to place Ford at some of their gatherings, I find her claim quite believable (though of course unproven). On the other hand if he denies it, her claim seems to fall apart quite badly.
|
Choosing to ignore empirical evidence when making decisions or judgments on real-word issues isn't well reasoned or logical. It's just ignorant.
|
Collins and Flake all but said Kavanaugh has their vote btw. Collins had the audacity to call the investigation thorough.
I'll be curious to see all the stories run over the next few days detailing all the people who the FBI refused to listen to regardless of how probative their statements were (you're already starting to see them). I wouldn't be surprised if some big newspaper actually reached out to these dozens of witnesses and put together their own report.
|
On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You can’t cite the democrats from the 1930s and try to line them up with the modern political version of that party. It does not compute for anyone with a mild understanding of US history, the civil rights movement and the existence of Richard Nixon.
And second of all, you are already proving my point that the Court is just a political arm of whatever party manages to control it. You say yourself that the Democrats have been doing it since forever and a day, so therefore it is fine that the conservatives are doing it now. The thing that you are objecting to is the Democrats openly doing what conservatives have been doing for years, because you know how much it will suck to be on the receiving end of the conservative style of partisan politics. Like a lot of conservatives, you want the rewards of your politics goals, but can’t stand to hear about the potential consequences of those goals.
Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways). Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones. Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them. I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all. So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start. Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy. But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:24 farvacola wrote:
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal. I don't intend to defend libertarianism, but rather, point out how him presenting his friend as "he had a certain belief system but he abandoned it to be more likable to other people" is a pretty bad reason. The non agression principle is pretty solid. He entered grown up land where people faced adult problems like homelessness and realized that his beliefs formed in high school and college were naive and childish.
I'm out of words with your incoherent rant.
Yes, making public policy regarding short term gratification of some people (how the people you know personally feel) instead of looking at large scale results, for both the entire population and long term results is pretty damn bad.
And man, if you switch your political views so other people like you are REALLY REALLY pathetic.
I have lots of empathy for the endless list of countries and people that have been ruined by big government policies. I personally know many Venezuelan inmigrants so leave your judgamental shit out of here.
|
Yeah he's gonna get confirmed, now we just gotta figure out the next step.
|
On October 05 2018 01:38 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways).
Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones.
Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them. I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all. So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start. Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy. But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. On October 05 2018 01:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:24 farvacola wrote:
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal. I don't intend to defend libertarianism, but rather, point out how him presenting his friend as "he had a certain belief system but he abandoned it to be more likable to other people" is a pretty bad reason. The non agression principle is pretty solid. He entered grown up land where people faced adult problems like homelessness and realized that his beliefs formed in high school and college were naive and childish. I'm out of words with your incoherent rant. Yes, making public policy regarding short term gratification of some people (how the people you know personally feel) instead of looking at large scale results, for both the entire population and long term results is pretty damn bad. And man, if you switch your political views so other people like you are REALLY REALLY pathetic. I have lots of empathy for the endless list of countries and people that have been ruined by big government policies. I personally know many Venezuelan inmigrants so leave your judgamental shit out of here.
a) perfectly coherent(can’t say the same for this post lol, so odd critique. you’ve fucked your grammar, provided judgement and promptly signed off with ‘leave your judgamental (sic) shit out of here; for instance.)
b) being so certain of your current political views that you can definitively say you’d never switch is what is pathetic here. it is either abysmally short sighted or downright ignorant.
-ah, you had edited this while i was typing, not that it helped. now instead it is just a bad mischaracterization of his post.
am i zlefin’ing? i feel dirty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
