Jump to content

US Politics: Stormy Weather Ahead


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That point we're making is that there is absolutely zero guarantee or reason for a Republican to block a qualified conservative to the SCOTUS. Your point is fine, in that a handful of Republican senators can derail policy, but that does not make it anymore likely that a handful of Republican senators will derail a well qualified, supremely conservative, young justice. We have history to say they won't so you screaming that if Kennedy retired, they would go more moderate, makes no sense to me.

Yeah, my feeling is that if another vacancy occurred Trump would appoint Kellyanne Conway or Jared Kushner. If the Senate disagreed, he'd just insist and they'd bend over and take it, as they always have to whatever he wants. And if the court wasn't voting the way he wanted, he'd expand it to 17 members, hand-selecting all of the new ones, possibly including himself once his term of office expires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

That point we're making is that there is absolutely zero guarantee or reason for a Republican to block a qualified conservative to the SCOTUS. Your point is fine, in that a handful of Republican senators can derail policy, but that does not make it anymore likely that a handful of Republican senators will derail a well qualified, supremely conservative, young justice. We have history to say they won't so you screaming that if Kennedy retired, they would go more moderate, makes no sense to me.

There is one thing; Murkowski and Collins are pro-choice. If Kennedy or Ginsburg retires they may be leery of approving a 5th justice to overturn Roe v. Wade.

(Potentially at least. There's the chance Roberts wouldn't want to go that far, but would almost certainly massively scale it back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

It depends. In 2014, I wasn't that stressed out. I had faint hopes about the Senate, but knew the House wasn't in play, and most importantly I knew that no matter, Obama was still going to be there to protect us from Congress.

Although, thinking back, that's the only even-year election I haven't been too stressed about in recent years. 

It's funny how your stress levels can be out of sync with reality. Take 2010 and 2012 for me. In 2010, I was basically running a state senate campaign and was nearly stress free. My candidate represented a safe liberal district, so that's really all I experienced. I didn't pay any attention to the national races. So you can imagine my reaction as I'm at our victory party and the results are coming in. We're up by like 25 points, everything was bliss so I started looking at other results. First I'm like, "We lost the state House, how the hell did that happen?" Then, "OMFG, we lost the state senate too?" And then I looked at the Congress, and my heart just sank. Conversely, in 2012 I was really stressed out at the end. My candidate was running away with the race so I got loaned out to the Obama people. The atmosphere went from a relaxing campaign to hyper stressed out. They honestly though he was going to lose Minnesota and the election, and talked me into believing the latter too (he was never going to lose MN). We were preparing for a very long night on Election Day, and low and behold, the race was called within the first hour. Funny how that works.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I wonder if part of the reason for this is that we're due for another realignment, but what that realignment looks like hasn't been decided. 

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

either she was gonna win as expected or I'd really need to get drunk. 

Yeah, I went the opposite way. Stayed up all night and polished off a bottle of Jameson. The results were not pretty in more ways than one. 

55 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I thought we were blaming the liberal agenda. I've been going after @Jaime L for like a year and a half.

I've said things I can't take back!

You weren't wrong to do so. Everything is his fault, including Luck's decrepit body and me now having to do all the mental gymnastics to  be able to root for Kirk Cousins. Jaime is history's second greatest monster, only behind @Week

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's funny how your stress levels can be out of sync with reality. Take 2010 and 2012 for me. In 2010, I was basically running a state senate campaign and was nearly stress free. My candidate represented a safe liberal district, so that's really all I experienced. I didn't pay any attention to the national races. So you can imagine my reaction as I'm at our victory party and the results are coming in. We're up by like 25 points, everything was bliss so I started looking at other results. First I'm like, "We lost the state House, how the hell did that happen?" Then, "OMFG, we lost the state senate too?" And then I looked at the Congress, and my heart just sank. Conversely, in 2012 I was really stressed out at the end. My candidate was running away with the race so I got loaned out to the Obama people. The atmosphere went from a relaxing campaign to hyper stressed out. They honestly though he was going to lose Minnesota and the election, and talked me into believing the latter too (he was never going to lose MN). We were preparing for a very long night on Election Day, and low and behold, the race was called within the first hour. Funny how that works.

I wonder if part of the reason for this is that we're due for another realignment, but what that realignment looks like hasn't been decided. 

Yeah, I went the opposite way. Stayed up all night and polished off a bottle of Jameson. The results were not pretty in more ways than one. 

You weren't wrong to do so. Everything is his fault, including Luck's decrepit body and me now having to do all the mental gymnastics to  be able to root for Kirk Cousins. Jaime is history's second greatest monster, only behind @Week

As an EXPERT in more than just Westeros Fantasy Football, I can tell you that drink is not the answer.

You gotta get dat DRUG playa!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Yukle said:

So some things I've discovered about US elections that I didn't know... which are all things that if you live in the USA, you should immediately demand are changed.

  • Some states, such as PA, don't use paper ballots. At all. Even to leave a paper trail.
  • There is no recount of votes unless someone asks for one.
  • There is no consistent typography for ballot papers, and they are not necessarily easy to read.
  • There is no consistent method for voting (numbering candidates, hole punching, and so on) across the country.
  • States do not necessarily provide disability support at all ballot boxes.

This all goes with the other issues that their voting methods have, such as:

  • First-past-the-post voting is terrible.
  • Voting isn't compulsory - which is fine - but there is no provision forcing the government to make voting easy to access for all who may want to vote.
  • Votes don't happen on weekends or a holiday.
  • Voter ID laws are selectively applied... and shouldn't exist in the first place.
  • Gerrymandering.

Excuse me, that's what freedom looks like! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Excuse me, that's what freedom looks like! 

No, freedom looks like teachers and staff standing in front of locked doors to keep students from participating in a national walkout to protest constant slaughter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The point we're making is that there is absolutely zero guarantee or reason for a Republican to block a qualified conservative to the SCOTUS. Your point is fine, in that a handful of Republican senators can derail policy, but that does not make it anymore likely that a handful of Republican senators will derail a well qualified, supremely conservative, young justice. We have history to say they won't so you screaming that if Kennedy retired, they would go more moderate, makes no sense to me.

My point is they would block an unqualified candidate. They wouldn't let some like Yukle listed get through. If they have say 56 seats, all bets are off if Trump nominated someone wholly unqualified. 

4 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

As an EXPERT in more than just Westeros Fantasy Football, I can tell you that drink is not the answer.

You gotta get dat DRUG playa!!!

Oh that was there too. And you were a fluke champion. You rigged the system! I should have been the champion! My team was better! &#%# Todd Gurley!!!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

 

Oh that was there too. And you were a fluke champion. You rigged the system! I should have been the champion! My team was better! &#%# Todd Gurley!!!!!! 

I got all of the LEGAL points. Unregistered points don't count!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

No, freedom looks like teachers and staff standing in front of locked doors to keep students from participating in a national walkout to protest constant slaughter.

Freedom comes in many forms, like trying to end safe, legal abortions and forcing women into the back alleys! Or forcing them to have the child and then provide no economic aid to help them raise said child. And then shame them for it too. Oh soooo much freedom!

3 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I got all of the LEGAL points. Unregistered points don't count!

Ha! Unregistered points like Antonio Brown and his stupid torn calf and sweet sweet DeShaun and his exploded knee. :bawl:

And now I have to listen to that monster @Jaime L mock me for another year. I could have been a contender!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My point is they would block an unqualified candidate. They wouldn't let some like Yukle listed get through. If they have say 56 seats, all bets are off if Trump nominated someone wholly unqualified. 
 

Maybe; they only blocked two candidates that were wholly unqualified, while letting a whole lot of others through. 

My quibble is that you said they'd go more moderate, and that's hogwash. They'd happily take someone ultraconservative as long as their bona fides were fine. They might stop people if they're grossly incompetent or hugely polarizing, but they're not going to stop for a second on super conservatives, unless you are meaning by super conservative to be a fascist or something like that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Ha! Unregistered points like Antonio Brown and his stupid torn calf and sweet sweet DeShaun and his exploded knee. :bawl:

And now I have to listen to that monster @Jaime L mock me for another year. I could have been a contender!!! 

You only ever contended for 2nd place. Jace came out of the draft with 1 QB, BITCHEZZZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My point is they would block an unqualified candidate. They wouldn't let some like Yukle listed get through. If they have say 56 seats, all bets are off if Trump nominated someone wholly unqualified. 

Sure, I agree. I think they'd block an unqualified candidate too. But I don't think Trump would nominate an unqualified candidate for the reason that he doesn't have to. There are plenty of justices on the Heritage list that are super conservative and considered well qualified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at this CNN thing on Nuclear Subs! That's Democracy right there. Russia makes a little cartoon and talks tough, America lets a journalist hang out on an arctic expedition in a weapon of war.

Now if only we could only spend money on shit that actually works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin might have his finger in the wind and decide that if ever there was a moment to act in open hostility to a NATO member and face limited risk. With all eyes on NK, there could be a proxy war on the horizon in Europe at a time when America is crippled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, I went the opposite way. Stayed up all night and polished off a bottle of Jameson. The results were not pretty in more ways than one. 

Oh I still stayed up all night drinking after I got home.  Pretty sure there's evidence on this board to prove it.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

My point is they would block an unqualified candidate. They wouldn't let some like Yukle listed get through. If they have say 56 seats, all bets are off if Trump nominated someone wholly unqualified.

But that doesn't really have anything to do with "moderates," or the close partisan makeup of the Senate.  The last (marginally) unqualified nominee was Harriet Miers, and she was defeated by conservatives.  Conservatives actually rather insist on qualifications because they need a record to be ensured they're getting what they asked for after getting burned so many times in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...