Kalbear Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 But...you can discuss US politics without the election. A supreme court nomination is absolutely not part of the election by itself. Obama wanting to close gitmo (again) isn't part of the election either. The reason is that the election thread is both incredibly busy and incredibly hostile, and at least this way those who don't want to discuss that issue won't get drown out by the high traffic vitriol that exists there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 24, 2016 Author Share Posted February 24, 2016 Kalbear, I simply disagree with you. The election has political implications and the nomination of a new justice has implications for the election. We should be able to discuss all of these overlapping issues without vitriol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Tywin, Then I suspect the best reaction the Republicans could make is none at all. If they want a moderate they need to look like they'd reject a moderate then confirm a moderate quickly if one is actually nominated. Maybe, but this is why it was a bad idea to say no to anyone publicly. Maith's comment above touchs on it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: But...you can discuss US politics without the election. A supreme court nomination is absolutely not part of the election by itself. Obama wanting to close gitmo (again) isn't part of the election either. The reason is that the election thread is both incredibly busy and incredibly hostile, and at least this way those who don't want to discuss that issue won't get drown out by the high traffic vitriol that exists there. Kal, Obama's decision on who to nominate has everything to do with the election. He know's his nominee won't get through, but by picking a moderate/centrist/center-right nominee, he makes the Republicans look unreasonable if they still refuse to even have a process. That helps HRC's talking points. That's why he won't pick a liberal candidate, it will play into Republicans' hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 I think that's fine; I think talking about whether or not Trump can carry the popular vote polling is probably not. In any case, IANAM, so do what you like I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 42 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think that's fine; I think talking about whether or not Trump can carry the popular vote polling is probably not. In any case, IANAM, so do what you like I guess. Trump easily could win the popular vote. And he could easily say something at the debate with HRC that could make him get less than 40% of the vote. Who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Maithanet said: I don't really understand why we have two threads to begin with. You cannot discuss US Politics without the Election, and you certainly can't discuss the election without politics. If I were going back to the SCOTUS pick, whether Obama should nominate a Republican like Sandoval, a very Centerist candidate like Sri Srinivasan or a more liberal candidate like Loretta Lynch, I think that it is influenced strongly by A) whether any acceptable candidate will get a hearing. B ) whether Obama thinks that the Democrats will hold the White House in 2016. If there truly is no chance that any acceptable candidate would get confirmed, then it would make sense to pick someone that will look bad for Republicans not to consider, like Sandoval. However, if Obama is confident in the Democrats chances in 2016, then he has much less incentive to pick a conservative choice. He also has to consider that if he picks a conservative choice and Clinton wins in November, they might approve that choice prior to the inaugoration. If Democrats retake the Senate, Republicans would actually have a pretty strong incentive to accept Obama's pick rather than the more liberal choice that would assuredly come in 2017. It seems like running the risk of them approving a candidate like Sandoval, that you don't really want, on the assumption that they are going to vote him down, is a pretty ridiculous gamble to take to score political points. I'm not convinced they'd even gain that much if he were to not get the vote. The ROI on that particular risk seems pretty low when weighed against the downside. It seems more likely that they are trying to cut a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 This has zero to do with Trump, actually. It has to do with the overall demographics of the country. Demographics looked at nationally are a false indicator for electoral college outcomes because minority races are not evenly distributed amongst all fifty states. For example, you can increase Latino turnout NATIONALLY from 41% to 50% and maintain the same partisan vote share and no states are flipped to democrats because Latinos are not distributed evenly across the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 These are the kind of potential hidden (so far) costs that make judging the fiscal impact of the ACA so difficult.... http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/health-care-inc/2016/02/health-republic-files-5b-suit-against-u-s-cites.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Sure, loki. I'm arguing for the state demographics than the country ones. It was shorthand. And right now, those heavily favor Democrats winning the presidential election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 The article is disturbing. The comments are scary. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-academics-told-to-avoid-sensitive-topics-if-gun-law-goes-into-effect/ar-BBpWFzJ?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=msnclassic Students and academics have warned of a chilling effect on freedom of expression ever since Texas became the latest state to pass a “campus carry” law last year. It compels public universities to allow license holders aged 21 and over to bring concealed handguns on to most areas of campus. The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not ‘go there’ if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.” A massacre waiting to happen? A 'I'll shoot if you flunk me?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 RE: The SCOTUS nomination http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-are-breaking-the-senate Quote A White House invitation for U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley to discuss the current U.S. Supreme Current vacancy with President Barack Obama has so far gone unanswered. Turning down the meeting would represent a break in protocol from two previous high court vacancies during Obama’s presidency, when the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Senate majority and minority leaders attended Oval Office meetings. The GOP appears so far to be refusing to engage in the process of replacing Scalia in any way what so ever. The editorialising below: Quote I suspect for the Iowa Republican, the calculus is pretty straightforward: Grassley has no intention of ever doing his duty, so there’s no real point in going to the Oval Office to discuss whether or not Grassley is going to take his responsibilities seriously. He’s already decided not to. But let’s recognize this for what it is: a scandal. For the first time in American history, a Senate majority party not only intends to leave a Supreme Court vacancy in place for a year, Republicans are also imposing a blockade on the constitutional process itself. As of yesterday, Grassley won’t talk to the president about potential justices, and at least five GOP senators – including the Senate Republican leadership – said they won’t even talk to the president’s nominee if he or she showed up at their offices for a visit. Nothing like this has ever happened in the American experience. That’s not hyperbole; it’s a demonstrable fact. As Republican politics reach new levels of radicalization, the intensity of their maximalist tactics has arrived at an unprecedented and scary point. I suspect, frankly, that the GOP is paralysed with fear and indecision at this point. They have no idea how to proceed on this issue other then stall, stall, stall and gamble on lasting till a gamble on a win in November. They are starring down the barrel of a gun labelled "loosing control of the Supreme Court" and have no idea how to win this battle beyond a long-shot at the presidency. So they do nothing. Stick with the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Agree. Hyper-compartmentalizations of discussions makes natural organic evolution of a discussion next to impossible as these issues all overlap. I'm going to answer this, but it's not an invite to discuss it further on the thread, please. We have a separate election thread for practical reasons. Past experience shows that if we don't, the election discussion is so fast-moving and gets so many posts that it swamps any other US Politics discussion completely, to the point where in practice it's impossible to carry on a conversation about anything else. In other words, if we didn't have a dedicated US Election thread, this thread would become the US Election thread by default and there would be no US Politics thread. There is unavoidably going to be some overlap on some political topics, but if people confine discussion of the primaries, debates, election polling, candidates' speeches, etc. to a separate thread then it at least gives a chance for a discussion of other topics to take place - like the current SC vacancy or ThinkerX's story above. So that's the reasoning and that's what we would ask people to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 25, 2016 Author Share Posted February 25, 2016 4 hours ago, Shryke said: RE: The SCOTUS nomination http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-are-breaking-the-senate The GOP appears so far to be refusing to engage in the process of replacing Scalia in any way what so ever. The editorialising below: I suspect, frankly, that the GOP is paralysed with fear and indecision at this point. They have no idea how to proceed on this issue other then stall, stall, stall and gamble on lasting till a gamble on a win in November. They are starring down the barrel of a gun labelled "loosing control of the Supreme Court" and have no idea how to win this battle beyond a long-shot at the presidency. So they do nothing. Stick with the plan. Shryke, Or, perhaps the picture of intransigence is being painted deliberately so that if Pres. Obama tries to paint them into a corner by nominating a moderate they can act quickly to confirm a moderate nominee without having the political fallout of rejecting an earlier more liberal nominee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyKC Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 What agency is in charge of bugs? It seems like with all the whining I hear about Monsanto and co from the left that they could cut a deal with the Environmental Dept. and donate some chemicals for spraying down municipal and state parks for insect control. This would also encourage more families to use parks and picnic sites instead of playing violent video games or indulging in mindless secular culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 I dunno if anyone was paying much attention to the questions round Scalia's death about the very exclusive and mysterious resort where Scalia died, where apparently he and the other guests were staying for free, but Washington Post reporters have dug up some information and it's taken a turn that is simultaneously weird, sad, and not that surprising: Quote When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died 11 days ago at a West Texas ranch, he was among high-ranking members of an exclusive fraternity for hunters called the International Order of St. Hubertus, an Austrian society that dates back to the 1600s. After Scalia’s death Feb. 13, the names of the 35 other guests at the remote resort, along with details about Scalia’s connection to the hunters, have remained largely unknown. A review of public records shows that some of the men who were with Scalia at the ranch are connected through the International Order of St. Hubertus, whose members gathered at least once before at the same ranch for a celebratory weekend. Members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robesemblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,” according to the group’s website. Some hold titles, such as Grand Master, Prior and Knight Grand Officer. The Order’s name is in honor of Hubert, the patron saint of hunters and fishermen. Cibolo Creek Ranch owner John Poindexter and C. Allen Foster, a prominent Washington lawyer who traveled to the ranch with Scalia by private plane, hold leadership positions within the Order. It is unclear what, if any, official association Scalia had with the group. Here's my favorite part: Quote The International Order of St. Hubertus, according to its website, is a “true knightly order in the historical tradition.” In 1695, Count Franz Anton von Sporck founded the society in Bohemia, which is in modern-day Czech Republic. The group’s Grand Master is “His Imperial Highness Istvan von Habsburg-Lothringen, Archduke of Austria,” according to the Order’s website. The next gathering for “Ordensbrothers” and guests is an “investiture” March 10 in Charleston, S.C. Oh yes, they opened their first chapter in the US through the Bohemian Grove association, just in case we hadn't checked off all the boxes yet. What is it about rich old white guys and their need to pretend that they're medieval knights? If I were writing a satirical secret society, I'd think naming the founder "Count Franz Anton von Sporck" might be a little too on the nose. Not to mention "honoring God by honoring his creatures" seems to mostly involve shooting birds sprung out of boxes. Like skeet shooting, but with blood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 29 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: What is it about rich old white guys and their need to pretend that they're medieval knights? Subconscious regret over their rebellion against their rightful monarch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, Hereward said: Subconscious regret over their rebellion against their rightful monarch? Since their grand master is a Habsburg (with a LinkedIn profile!), they may think your own monarch is a little light in the pedigree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Monarchy used to be one huge inbreeding festival. So I am quite sure those lightweight royals have one or two Habsburg genes in their pedigree, or the Habsburger have at least some genes from those lightweights. To illustrate my point with the inbreeding festival. Just google Habsburg jaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Since their grand master is a Habsburg (with a LinkedIn profile!), they may think your own monarch is a little light in the pedigree. A ragged house, long bereft of lordship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.