EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 873
| 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
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22290 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: What is the other option tho? accept the 'culture war'? I think this is a big part of it. But I also think democrats are plain and simply more motivated to unite with conservatives. Democrats always want unity with pretty much everyone. Republican core philosophy has the idea that "not all cultures get along and not all cultures SHOULD get along" built in. The idea that you plain and simply have some enemies and some friends is not a foreign idea to their culture. Democrats are hopelessly optimistic regarding unity and I think it ends up hurting our cause. You'd be accepting that America as a nation can no longer exist, two sides that cannot reconcile and one must die out? That's some bleak shit. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:07 Gorsameth wrote: What is the other option tho? accept the 'culture war'? You'd be accepting that America as a nation can no longer exist, two sides that cannot reconcile and one must die out? That's some bleak shit. The necessity of war does not mean the impossibility of peace. We wrecked Germany's shit real hard and now we're homies. What I am referring to is more so this consistent taming of rhetoric, hesitance to get mad, and resistance to commit to the ideas that we supposedly think are important. Simply put, democrats don't want it bad enough. Conservatives want it more and they fight harder. Our leaders keep us tamed, subdued and actively try to tell us it is okay that we keep losing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:01 Mohdoo wrote: I think this is a big part of it. But I also think democrats are plain and simply more motivated to unite with conservatives. Democrats always want unity with pretty much everyone. Republican core philosophy has the idea that "not all cultures get along and not all cultures SHOULD get along" built in. The idea that you plain and simply have some enemies and some friends is not a foreign idea to their culture. Democrats are hopelessly optimistic regarding unity and I think it ends up hurting our cause. I believe this point has been their downfall. Being both pro-business and pro-labor has hurt them. Being both pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership has hurt them. They cannot find a sharp message that resonates with people. Obama had flaws, but the man had a clear message. Economic recovery together. Fixing healthcare together. The Democrats never recaptured that after he stopped running. They are so worried about upsetting one demographic that they never mounted a clear path for the country. I also think it is going to change when the leadership of the party changes. You can already see a younger, way angrier group of democrats hitting the stage. The Florida governors race is a thing to watch. It is a black candidate taking on an open racist and not being shy talking about it. But importantly, he doesn't call his opponent as racist. He says that other racists are calling his opponent a racist. It is the first candidate in the post Trump era that I have seen taken on that approach of really punishing his opponent for their flirtations with racist groups. Other, smaller things too. We see Booker telling Grassley to try an eject him from the Senate. We the Senator from Hawaii literally say Grassley's statement was "bullshit" to reporters. We saw that amazing hearing in the House with the FBI agent. The will to punch back exists and accepted now as the right course of action. On October 26 2018 02:07 Gorsameth wrote: What is the other option tho? accept the 'culture war'? You'd be accepting that America as a nation can no longer exist, two sides that cannot reconcile and one must die out? That's some bleak shit. You fight the culture war. You hit Republicans where they suck, labor and economic issues. You got after their love affair with the super wealthy. Mohdoo has it right that half the reason it is this bad is because Democrats had this delusion that the Bush administration was a one time deal and not the new normal. They never hit back at the republicans or punished the bad actors in the system. We are here almost 2 decades later and they are still whining about Fox News. They had complete control of congress, just regulate that shitty network like congress is supposed to do. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22290 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:15 Wulfey_LA wrote: Because the GOP will let them do their thing of exploiting people without complaint.You can't "No True Conservative" the modern conservative movement without also explaining why all the various plutocratic conservative megadonors remain 100% behind the existing Trump/Republican/Conservative movement. If the current Conservatism is really "No True Conservative", then why do Adelson, Koch, Murdoch, the Bush family, the Mercers, etc. still stick behind modern Conservatism? Unlike the Dems who get all uppity about exploiting the lower classes to death. The wonders of the 2 party system. Even if they don't fully agree with the GOP, the only alternative is even further away. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:14 Plansix wrote: I believe this point has been their downfall. Being both pro-business and pro-labor has hurt them. Being both pro-gun control and pro-gun ownership has hurt them. They cannot find a sharp message that resonates with people. Obama had flaws, but the man had a clear message. Economic recovery together. Fixing healthcare together. The Democrats never recaptured that after he stopped running. They are so worried about upsetting one demographic that they never mounted a clear path for the country. I also think it is going to change when the leadership of the party changes. You can already see a younger, way angrier group of democrats hitting the stage. The Florida governors race is a thing to watch. It is a black candidate taking on an open racist and not being shy talking about it. But importantly, he doesn't call his opponent as racist. He says that other racists are calling his opponent a racist. It is the first candidate in the post Trump era that I have seen taken on that approach of really punishing his opponent for their flirtations with racist groups. Other, smaller things too. We see Booker telling Grassley to try an eject him from the Senate. We the Senator from Hawaii literally say Grassley's statement was "bullshit" to reporters. We saw that amazing hearing in the House with the FBI agent. The will to punch back exists and accepted now as the right course of action. Don't forget Ohio and Michigan; Michigan is practically guaranteed to swing hard blue throughout (especially governor and AG) and while Ohio is a closer call, it's looking very possible that it swings blue just as hard. The key for folks interested in a Democratic Party that fights is to focus on the fighters and ignore/push aside the establishment gladhanders. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On October 26 2018 01:34 farvacola wrote: Why do you keep bringing up Warren court decisions as the starting point for "unabridged growth of SCOTUS power" when there is ample reason to set that trend far earlier? One can easily argue it began during the Lochner era or, as I believe, with Chisholm v. Georgia. Arguably Chisholm vs Georgia was a wash as in exchange for the court demonstrating it was willing to arbitrate matters concerning state and federal government, the 11th Amendment restricted their jurisdiction. Marbury vs Madison expanded their reach to overrule Congress and the executive branch, which was not mention in the Constitution; it was justified as an unenumerated right. But one can't claim it was a catalyst to the bickering and underhanded BS that's been occurring in the last decade, especially since the reach of the government was relatively small compared to today. Griswold vs Connecticut clarified the "penumbra" clause Justices had been invoking for decades without giving a concrete reference. The word had existed in SCOTUS publication since 1916 but Justice Warren was the first to state it was tied to "zones of privacy"; prior to his writing, it was used as the extension of implied rights derived from the Amendments (Holmes used this twice to my knowledge) or a metaphorical shrug to the limits of the law to articulate every instance of its application. Post-1966, SCOTUS has assumed a fluid authority to decide what norms fall under "privacy" de facto. Miranda vs Arizona set the precedent of micromanaging and demarcating the scope of the executive branch instead of merely approving or rejecting cases as unconstitutional. Even the premise of judicial review established by Madison only extended to negating laws/actions that contravened the Constitution. The former is the pigpen where the parties fight over social issues such as abortion. The latter is the backing whoever has momentary leverage over the government needs to sanction their policies. On October 26 2018 01:35 IgnE wrote: yeah it is odd considering that roosevelt’s court-packing scheme is a fairly important event in us judicial history Yes, except the Democrats didn't unilaterally support the Judicial Reform Bill. FFS Vice President Garner opposed him and the Democratic chairman, Henry Ashurst, stonewalled hearings to prevent its passing. Many of the party's prominent leaders was aghast at the idea. They didn't believe it was imperative to push a ideologically tilted court. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:20 farvacola wrote: Don't forget Ohio and Michigan; Michigan is practically guaranteed to swing hard blue throughout (especially governor and AG) and while Ohio is a closer call, it's looking very possible that it swings blue just as hard. The key for folks interested in a Democratic Party that fights is to focus on the fighters and ignore/push aside the establishment gladhanders. Those are two states that have been chronically mismanaged by their state GOP and the Democrats are making hard pushes there because people are fed up. Ohio's education system is on fire. These are the fights the Democrats can win. And state goverment is a big part of taking back control over how this country is run. And lets not forget that Republicans are having to support the ACA now, because healthcare is still a huge issue. But with their open attacks on the ACA and lawsuits trying to gut it, they are not making much headway. Hopefully this all pans out in November and we can see how the GOP handles the Democrats having some power again. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22290 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote: Hopefully this all pans out in November and we can see how the GOP handles the Democrats having some power again. Do nothing, then blame the Democrats for everything. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:22 CosmicSpiral wrote: Arguably Chisholm vs Georgia was a wash as in exchange for the court demonstrating it was willing to arbitrate matters concerning state and federal government, the 11th Amendment restricted their jurisdiction. Marbury vs Madison expanded their reach to overrule Congress and the executive branch, which was not mention in the Constitution; it was justified as an unenumerated right. But one can't claim it was a catalyst to the bickering and underhanded BS that's been occurring in the last decade, especially since the reach of the government was relatively small compared to today. Griswold vs Connecticut clarified the "penumbra" clause Justices had been invoking for decades without giving a concrete reference. The word had existed in SCOTUS publication since 1916 but Justice Warren was the first to state it was tied to "zones of privacy"; prior to his writing, it was used as the extension of implied rights derived from the Amendments (Holmes used this twice to my knowledge) or a metaphorical shrug to the limits of the law to articulate every instance of its application. Post-1966, SCOTUS has assumed a fluid authority to decide what norms fall under "privacy" de facto. Miranda vs Arizona set the precedent of micromanaging and demarcating the scope of the executive branch instead of merely approving or rejecting cases as unconstitutional. Even the premise of judicial review established by Madison only extended to negating laws/actions that contravened the Constitution. The former is the pigpen where the parties fight over social issues such as abortion. The latter is the backing whoever has momentary leverage over the government needs to sanction their policies. Yes, except the Democrats didn't unilaterally support the Judicial Reform Bill. FFS Vice President Garner opposed him and the Democratic chairman, Henry Ashurst, stonewalled hearings to prevent its passing. Many of the party's prominent leaders was aghast at the idea. They didn't believe it was imperative to push a ideologically tilted court. While you're still ignoring all of the ridiculous casuistry that went into the expansion of the "right to contract" as basis for finding government acts unconstitutional that took place during the leadup to the switch in time that saved nine, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I would maintain that "bickering and underhanded BS" is basically the substance of this nation's politics and always has been. Positing that the bad stuff really took off after such and such event, other than the nation's founding (or even the implementation of the Articles of Confederation), is itself a bit of historical nostalgia of the sort that many conservatives use when they want to impugn the decisions of the Warren court or the passage of the CRA. It's a hard stretch to assert that the federal courts saying what the law is is not judicial activism while contending that judicial explication of the rights underlying the Amendments to the Constitution is judicial activism. As for regard for the penumbra right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, Brandeis and Holmes were the ones who came up with that concept in Olmstead anyhow. Historically, the Warren court is an odd place to affix your criticism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
People inherited this talking points and critiques that have been refined since the 1950s and 1960s. Often unknowingly. But it is hard to discount the result of the more conservative court and its recent overturning the will of congress with the voters rights act. The rush to voter suppression was instant, like a gun went off when the ruling came down. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 26 2018 02:22 CosmicSpiral wrote: Yes, except the Democrats didn't unilaterally support the Judicial Reform Bill. FFS Vice President Garner opposed him and the Democratic chairman, Henry Ashurst, stonewalled hearings to prevent its passing. Many of the party's prominent leaders was aghast at the idea. They didn't believe it was imperative to push a ideologically tilted court. Well if your point is simply that an understanding of court power became "partisan" along familiar lines, between parties that resemble our current parties, then ok, yeah, maybe the 60s was when that happened. But judicial "activism" and the power of the courts to "extra-constitutionally" define law was appreciated very early. The court-packing scheme, while not partisan, in the sense of breaking down along party lines, makes it very clear that entire legislative agendas, and even peculiar visions of "progress," depended on the court's composition. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
And this column is the perfect example : upholding the law and the intent of the law, remembering where Americans are coming from, and just being humane. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-camp-of-the-saints-and-the-migrant-caravan Here is the conclusion for those who don't want the whole read (though I would advise to read it in full) : The blanket rejection by force of everyone in the caravan violates the spirit and the intentions of the laws the president has sworn to uphold. Those laws mandate a careful examination of all who want to come here -- on a neutral case-by-case basis -- not a blanket prohibition. We who call ourselves Americans are nearly all descended from immigrants. Yet when our forebears arrived here, they were met simply by prejudice and government indifference. The poor folks in the caravan are likely to be met by prejudice and government force. And a chosen bit : I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The courts protect natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them. That bar -- called strict scrutiny -- was crafted so as to make it nearly impossible for the government to interfere materially with personal freedoms, such as travel. And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration -- i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here. | ||
KwarK
United States43956 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On October 26 2018 00:31 Mohdoo wrote: Trump's base will just assume Trump uses it to confuse Russia and China so that they never know what is real and what isn't. They see the idea of an unsecured device as proof he's playing 4d chess. Edit, on a somewhat separate topic: I don't think the civil war actually ever ended. All of the underlying issues causing the civil war were never dealt with. I would argue allowing for 2 completely distinct cultures to exist within the same country was a mistake that was going to boil over eventually. Trump's presidency has accelerated the boiling, but the culture war has been going this entire time. Not really, they will just say its fake news and call it a day. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 26 2018 05:10 Godwrath wrote: Not really, they will just say its fake news and call it a day. On r/askatrumpsupporter they just link the story of China saying they are 100% not spying.... Because yeah they wouldn't lie..... There is also the 'it is an anonymous source so it must be fake' Also there is the he is playing 4d chess and lying to them. There is ALSO the its not the same as Hillary because she was trying to hide shit from records and trump clearly isnt doing that | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 05:08 KwarK wrote: Sounds like libertarianism to me. But whatever, I’ll take it over neo-fascism. Anything that reminds Americans that we didn’t have immigration laws until the early 1900s is good enough for me. Though it will rob me of telling people that the US has open borders for the majority of its history and it was super cool. There is a special joy that comes from watching people dig themselves out of the xenophobic hole they dug for themselves. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 26 2018 05:19 Plansix wrote: Anything that reminds Americans that we didn’t have immigration laws until the early 1900s is good enough for me. Though it will rob me of telling people that the US has open borders for the majority of its history and it was super cool. There is a special joy that comes from watching people dig themselves out of the xenophobic hole they dug for themselves. 100 years is an insanely long time from a societal point of view. I don't think it helps any argument to say "we didn't even have these laws until the 1900s". Think about the world in the 1900s. It is not even comparable. Hell, global society in the 90s isn't even relevant. So much has changed in so little time. I think it is important to recognize how much change has taken place. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 26 2018 05:22 Mohdoo wrote: 100 years is an insanely long time from a societal point of view. I don't think it helps any argument to say "we didn't even have these laws until the 1900s". Think about the world in the 1900s. It is not even comparable. Hell, global society in the 90s isn't even relevant. So much has changed in so little time. I think it is important to recognize how much change has taken place. Ah, but you have already fallen into the trap by saying everything is so different now. Each immigration law was designed to keep a specific group of people out. At first, in the late 1800s was designed to keep the Chinese out or deport them after 10 years of labor. Then in the 1924 they had the first proper immigration limit in the US, designed to keep Italians, Greeks, eastern Europeans and Jews out of the country. And so on and so on and so on. Each law was created due to a strong xenophobic push to keep a specific undesirable group out of the country. We even kicked out illegal immigrants in Operation Wetback(that is literally its name) where we just took 1.3 million people and moved them back to Mexico in the 1950s. With every attempt to limit immigration in this country, we have just created more illegal immigrants because it is about closing borders, not controlling immigration. . And every single law that was passed was backed by some group of racists that feared these new immigrants. It is only in the 1980s that we even start to talk about treating illegal immigrants with any compassion on a national level, which was quickly abandoned. Of course we need immigration reform and control, but lets not kid ourselves that illegal immigration in the US is a problem created by a long line of people who 11 million illegal immigrants to have citizenship and to be able to vote. Steve Miller loves the Chinese Exclusion Act and would pass a South American Exclusion Act in a heart beat. | ||
| ||
