| 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 | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13378 Posts
So yeah, some folks worry about it. I doubt that it will change abortion rights in the short term. Let's be honest. But in the medium term, a more partisan republican SCOTUS would be bad for the US. This *shouldn't* be an issue. There shouldn't be political partisanship in SCOTUS, it shouldn't be a political consideration at all. But unfortunately that's where American politics has gotten. The partisanship is heavy, and real. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43435 Posts
On June 24 2024 23:14 Eochaid wrote: It is great that you raise the banning of abortions by SCOTUS. But I don't really see how voting for Biden in November will change that. I literally wrote it in my very short post that you supposedly responded to. There are 4 SCJs who will be in their 70s, which could easily be retiring/dying age. Not sure why you went on a huge rant afterwards. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43435 Posts
On June 24 2024 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote: "fix things" isn't on the ballot in November. Biden winning isn't even going to get potentially pregnant people their rights back, let alone "fix things". I know you and I have generally different perspectives on what ought to be fixed and how we can fix it. When I said "fix things" in the specific context of overturning Roe v. Wade, I was referring to how appointing more liberal SCJs (by Biden and other future Democratic presidents) would be ideal for re-protecting women's rights, as opposed to the alternative (Trump and other future Republican presidents appointing more conservative SCJs as eventual replacements). If Trump gets to secure even more SCJs, then we'd be screwed for even longer. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17697 Posts
On June 25 2024 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I literally wrote it in my very short post that you supposedly responded to. There are 4 SCJs who will be in their 70s, which could easily be retiring/dying age. Not sure why you went on a huge rant afterwards. His rant is saying Biden could already have done something about that and didn't. And the Democrats in general could already have done a lot more to help women who need abortions, but haven't. So while Trump would no doubt be worse, it's very lazy and convenient to bring It up as a reason to vote for Biden, when Biden could have used the last 3 years to try to fix things, and did jack shit about this... | ||
|
Eochaid
5 Posts
On June 25 2024 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I literally wrote it in my very short post that you supposedly responded to. There are 4 SCJs who will be in their 70s, which could easily be retiring/dying age. Not sure why you went on a huge rant afterwards. So the plan is to vote for Biden and to wait for the SCOTUS members to die of old age and then to replace them? I thought Scalia died under Obama and Obama didn't even replace him. So how exactly does that work? And if they get to be 85 years of age or older, it doesn't even do anything. Biden can convince Sotamayor to retire today and replace her before the election. The odds of Biden dying of old age in the next 4 years are probably larger than any of the members of SCOTUS dying in the next 4 years. And even if one of them dies/retires, why can't the GOP just block Biden appointing a SCOTUS member just as they did with Obama & Garland? And if Biden has a plan, why doesn't he use it right now. He can nominate 9 new justices to be added to the current 9 today. He doesn't need to wait until November to do that. And even Biden wins, 4 members of SCOTUS are replaced by Biden nominees, how does that help woman get abortions? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43435 Posts
On June 25 2024 00:22 Acrofales wrote: His rant is saying Biden could already have done something about that and didn't. And the Democrats in general could already have done a lot more to help women who need abortions, but haven't. So while Trump would no doubt be worse, it's very lazy and convenient to bring It up as a reason to vote for Biden, when Biden could have used the last 3 years to try to fix things, and did jack shit about this... Except his rant makes no sense. He thinks that Biden could unilaterally add as many Supreme Court Justices as he wants, without Congressional approval, which is just wrong. He's ranting, but with nothing of substance to offer. What could Biden have done to legally strongarm red states and Republican leaders into protecting abortion rights, instead of eliminating them? | ||
|
Eochaid
5 Posts
What could Biden have done? Wait a minute! Isn't it you that just said that it is 2 years after Roe vs Wade and that we need to vote Biden because of abortion. YOU need to explain how Biden is going to be doing that. This is your argument and your burden of proof. But now you ask me how Biden van magically fix abortion? Or is it your argument that we have 100% lost the fight on abortion and we need Biden and the deaths of several SCOTUS members to not also lose the right to IVF or contraception? Or mixed marriages? Or woman's rights to vote? Or non-landowners right to vote? Seriously? My point is that all of this happened while people voted for Democrats/Biden/Obama several times. If all it takes is for the GOP to win just one election for abortion rights, or any other right, to be lost, how does that even work? Is the argument that voters need to make sure Democrats win every single election or else they will let the GOP take some of our rights away as punishment for not coming all out to vote Dem? And yes, I did in fact explain in my 'rant' how Biden could have done something. Biden could have said he would steal back the SCOTUS seats that the GOP stole during the 2020 campaign. And then actually do it in his first year in office. Biden can actually strongarm red states. Biden can 100% cut off federal aid from a state like Alabama until Alabama stops letting woman who have a malformed fetus and who need an abortion breed to death on an emergency room table. And besides cutting off all federal money flows to states that ban abortion. Besides nominating 9 new members of SCOTUS and having the Dem senate approve them, which is perfectly legal btw. There is no reason why it should be 9. In fact, it wasn't 9 for a very long time. And considering the amount of cases and the current US population, 9 is historically low number anyway. In fact, Biden could order Seal Team 6 to abduct all SCOTUS members and hold them hostage in Gitmo until they undo their Roe vs Wade. Biden could 100% do that. That's what Trump's lawyers have argued in front of SCOTUS and SCOTUS still haven't figured out that Biden can't do it. So until they do, Biden can 100% do that according to SCOTUS themselves. But besides doing those things, or nothing except tell us to vote for him in November, there is a huge area of more realistic things he could have done in between those two extremes. And these are not hard to realize. Maybe you should reread my 'rant' a second time. And take it more to heart. BTW, besides Biden, the US senate has power over SCOTUS. I can go on anther rant on what the Democratic controlled senate could have done to on SCOTUS. But that will just be another 'rant' that you will refuse to even read. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43435 Posts
On June 25 2024 01:19 Eochaid wrote: What are you talking about? Biden can nominate members for SCOTUS. Yes, the senate needs to confirm these. I never said Biden could unilaterally add members to SCOTUS. You wrote multiple paragraphs about how easy it would have been for Biden to appoint multiple SCJs lol. What could Biden have done? Wait a minute! Isn't it you that just said that it is 2 years after Roe vs Wade and that we need to vote Biden. YOU need to explain how Biden is going to be doing that. This is your argument and your burden of proof. But now you ask me how Biden van magically fix abortion? I will absolutely not be repeating myself again. Go back and read about the potential ramifications of a more liberal Supreme Court vs. a more conservative Supreme Court. Edit: Biden could order Seal Team 6 to abduct all SCOTUS members and hold them hostage in Gitmo until they undo their Roe vs Wade. Biden could 100% do that. Troll confirmed. Not even a good one. I won't be engaging with you further. | ||
|
Eochaid
5 Posts
You realize that if Biden nominates new SCOTUS members today, they are expected to get approved by the senate, right? And that after the November election, that Democrats are expected to lose control of the senate, right? So yes, Biden can expand SCOTUS right now. But after November 2024, even if he wins, he likely no longer can. In fact, after the November election and based off the FiveThirtyEight and other predicting sites, Biden won't even be able to replace retiring justices because a GOP controlled senate will just block him. Most of the seats up for election are Democrat-held seats. And the senate is land, not people, something else the Democrats also did nothing about for decades. The smallest 5 states by population have 10 senate seats. While DC, Puerto Rico, Guam have zero senate seats, but more people. If Biden fought to get control back over SCOTUS, but failed, then at least he tried. He didn't even try. Same on abortion. He didn't do anything to try to give all Americans their abortion rights back. He should have tried something and have either SCOTUS shoot it down. Or GOP in the house block it. But he did basically nothing. After November 2024, Biden likely won't even be able to do anything even if he wanted. Is he then suddenly going to fight for SCOTUS control or abortion when he already knows he is gonna lose on that? It is clear that Democrats do not want to spend political capital on abortion. They just want to cash in on the votes. You want people here to vote for Biden because of abortion. But it seems you are anti abortion yourself and acting in very bad faith. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22335 Posts
On June 25 2024 00:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I know you and I have generally different perspectives on what ought to be fixed and how we can fix it. When I said "fix things" in the specific context of overturning Roe v. Wade, I was referring to how appointing more liberal SCJs (by Biden and other future Democratic presidents) would be ideal for re-protecting women's rights, as opposed to the alternative (Trump and other future Republican presidents appointing more conservative SCJs as eventual replacements). If Trump gets to secure even more SCJs, then we'd be screwed for even longer. Yeah, just need a couple decades of uninterrupted Democrat wins and maybe they'll get their rights back... Just imagining some 18 year old in Georgia that voted for Biden in 2020 to protect their reproductive rights only to be pitched by Democrats through their entire child bearing years on eventually regaining their right to control their own body. At this point I wouldn't be surprised to see Democrats unironically campaigning on "re-protecting" democracy in a kabuki 2028 election. "Trump took away your right to vote, don't you want democracy back?!? Vote for your (Trump approved) 'Democrat' in the 2028 election (that doesn't actually count because Trump is a dictator like he told us he would be before we gave him control of the most dangerous nuclear arsenal in the world) ". | ||
|
Eochaid
5 Posts
On June 25 2024 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Edit: Troll confirmed. Not even a good one. I won't be engaging with you further. WTF are you talking about? This is literally what Trump's lawyers argued in front of SCOTUS. Except in Trump's case, it was an actual assassination. Not an abduction. And YOUR SCOTUS has now SPEND SIX MONTHS deciding if this is a good argument, yes or no. So it seems potentially legal for Biden to do this. And I am the troll? Are you fucking kidding me. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43435 Posts
This Thursday's debate will be 90 minutes long, with 2 commercial breaks, with CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash as moderators. There are two interesting adjustments to this debate - no live studio audience, and microphones will be muted unless it's a candidate's turn to speak. I think those two adjustments hurt Trump more than they hurt Biden, as I think Trump really thrives on audience energy and he endlessly interrupts his opponents. Depending on how physically far apart Biden and Trump will be standing/sitting, I wonder if Biden would still be distracted if Trump keeps talking even when his mic is muted. ( https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/st-biden-trump-debate-watch/story?id=111253724 ) | ||
KwarK
United States41516 Posts
No water in your faucets. You ever try buying a new home and you turn on. You want to wash your hair or you wanna wash your hands. You turn on the water and it goes drip, drip the soap. You can't get it off your hand. So you keep it running for about 10 times longer. You trying, the worst is your hair. I have this beautiful luxuriant hair and I put stuff on. I put it in lather. I like lots of lather because I like it to come out extremely dry because it seems to be slightly thicker that way. And I lather up and then you turn on this crazy shower and the thing drip, drip and you say I'm gonna be here for 45 minutes. What? There's so much water. You don't know what to do with it. You know, it's called rain. It rains a lot in certain places. But, now their idea, you know, did you see the other day? They just, I opened it up and they closed it again. I opened it, they close it, washing machines to wash your dishes. There is a problem. They don't want you to have any water. They want no water. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17697 Posts
On June 25 2024 15:08 KwarK wrote: Trump on the campaign trail continues to be remarkable. What Kwark? That never happened to you? You buy a new house and the water is turned off, and you need politicians to fix that because you don't know where the water main is? + Show Spoiler + Not to mention, you soap up regardless, because FREEDOM! And only get really upset when you can't rinse the soap off your beautiful dry, brittle combover! | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom790 Posts
On June 25 2024 15:08 KwarK wrote: Trump on the campaign trail continues to be remarkable. I've tried reading this three times and I'm giving up. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States9965 Posts
On June 25 2024 15:22 Acrofales wrote: What Kwark? That never happened to you? You buy a new house and the water is turned off, and you need politicians to fix that because you don't know where the water main is? + Show Spoiler + Not to mention, you soap up regardless, because FREEDOM! And only get really upset when you can't rinse the soap off your beautiful dry, brittle combover! He's obviously ranting about flow restrictors. Kwark's fake quote seems to selectively edit out all the mentions of that. It also deletes other words and sentences entirely to make it seem incoherent. A good reminder that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I'm in 100% agreement with him on this. The first thing I do when I buy a shower head is figure out how to remove the flow restrictor. My shower could peel the flesh off your bones and it's amazing. Nobody wants to take a shower where the water comes dripping out like it's coming from an old man with prostate issues. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22335 Posts
On June 25 2024 15:08 KwarK wrote: Trump on the campaign trail continues to be remarkable. This is just how some people think/talk. Not presidents typically, but a lot of his voters talk like this. Besides conveniently omitting when he mentions the water restrictors he's talking about to make it look worse than it was, if you asked a bunch of "swing voters" in PA about water restrictors in their sinks, showers, and dishwashers this is what their response would sound like more or less (probably sans the lines about his "beautiful luxuriant hair" lol). So berating its style probably won't have the desired impact. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17697 Posts
On June 25 2024 16:18 BlackJack wrote: He's obviously ranting about flow restrictors. Kwark's fake quote seems to selectively edit out all the mentions of that. It also deletes other words and sentences entirely to make it seem incoherent. A good reminder that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I'm in 100% agreement with him on this. The first thing I do when I buy a shower head is figure out how to remove the flow restrictor. My shower could peel the flesh off your bones and it's amazing. Nobody wants to take a shower where the water comes dripping out like it's coming from an old man with prostate issues. Sounds like a US thing. I just reformed 2 bathrooms and in the new showers I don't open the tap fully, because it's just too much water. I was actually worried about it and looked up whether "rain" showerheads use more water and they don't, they just make it more likely you'll stand in the shower enjoying the water for longer, lol. E: I'm not claiming flow restrictors aren't used in Spain. Given the drought we're in, I damned well hope we do have them. But according to the specs, my shower should do 12 l/min, which I'm guessing in the US needs converting to gallons per phase of the moon or something. I'm pretty sure it also depends on the water pressure, so maybe I get more, but assuming it's that 12 l/min avg they state, I wonder if the problem is that flow restrictors are more aggressive in the US, the general pipe pressure is shit, so the restrictors cause a bigger problem, or the general public treats their showers like their cars: if it doesn't use a billion gallons every second, it isn't a proper car/shower? | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2431 Posts
It's a dumb rant from trump and dumb to misquote it and not make that clear (though amusing) It's also dumb for me to just trust BJ / GH that its misquoted, but a cursory google gave different rants from trump about water pressurefrom 4 years ago, so I gave up real fast. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41516 Posts
Now they'll say all these stories are terrible. Well, these stories have, you know, you heard my story in the boat with the shark, right? I got killed on that. They thought I was rambling. I'm not rambling. We can't get the boat to float. The battery is so heavy. So then I start talking about asking questions. You know, I have an, I had an uncle who was a great professor at MIT for many years, long, I think the longest tenure ever. Very smart, had three different degrees and you know, so I have an aptitude for things. You know, there is such a thing as an aptitude. I said, well, what would happen if this boat is so heavy and started to sink and you're on the top of the boat. Do you get electrocuted or not? In other words, the boat is going down and you're on the top, will the electric currents flow through the water and wipe you out? And let's say there's a shark about 10 yards over there. Would I have to immediately abandon or could I ride the electric down and he said, sir, nobody's ever asked us that question. But sir, I don't know. I said, well, I want to know because I guarantee you one thing, I don't care what happens. I'm staying with the electric, I'm not getting over with it. So I tell that story. And the fake news they go, he told this crazy story with electric. It's actually not crazy. It's sort of a smart story, right? Sort of like, you know, it's like the snake, it's a smart when you, you figure what you're leaving in, right? You're bringing it in the, you know, the snake, right? The snake and the snake. I tell that and they do the same thing. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  31200Rain 5829Horang2 2183Stork 639ZerO  450ggaemo 359BeSt 173Mind  161hero 128Mong 118[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv10600 B2W.Neo2978 crisheroes545 gobbtv512 FrodaN485 sgares482 DeMusliM435 Mew2King343 Fuzer  292Hui .212 mouzStarbuck209 Liquid`VortiX195 RotterdaM127 Trikslyr67 KnowMe43 ZerO(Twitch)19 |
|
OlimoLeague
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs XuanXuan
Cross vs Xin
CSO Cup
Acropolis
Acropolis
Sparkling Tuna Cup
SOOP
ByuN vs Rogue
SC Evo Complete
WardiTV Invitational
PassionCraft
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
