U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Already lost, silly. SCOTUS will invalidate any move to undo Trumpism, the electorate will continue to reward R's for 'being tough' while punishing 'obstructionist Dems', and it only get worse from here as Unions crumble and wealth continues to consolidate at the top.

The problem with this 'all is lost' ranting is that it does nothing but harm. Even if you think motivating others to vote is pointless, there are people out there dealing with feelings of anger and despair and anxiety, and telling them nothing can be done is actively harmful to their mental health, even if it is true. 

So maybe dial that stuff back a bit?

2 hours ago, كالدب said:

Yeah, it's just hard for me to really get worked up about some expat shouting at us to vote when they aren't remotely affected by things going on in the US any more, or criticizing those reactions (or decisions) of people here. 

Chickens don't get to tell the pigs if bacon's on the menu or not. 

What a terrible analogy.

Expats have a stake in what happens in their home country. They have relatives and friends who are affected, and they will be affected by some of the decisions their government takes, even ignoring their emotional investment (and why would we ignore that?)

They aren't chickens in this analogy. At best, they're free range pigs. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

@SummerBass

Quote

I doubt it. The folks driving the anti-choice animus within the Republican Party only compromise tactically - they want a total abortion ban in the US, and Republicans have brought up national level abortion restrictions before. They're not going to settle permanently for "only" having abortion being legal in "blue" states, and I strongly suspect support for a national abortion ban would become mandatory for surviving a primary for any congressional Republicans aside from a handful of moderates in New England.

That will depend how much those who opposed Roe vs. Wade on a State Rights issue are truly left in that coalition. They may now be they are all on a National ban but once the reality of Roe vs. Wade being overturn has occurred it can well be a different matter. Things people were easily ready to vote on when they knew there can be a very good chance of being blocked by the Courts could not be ready with that gone. The ACA is the best recent example of Republicand easily passing repeals when they knew Obama will veto got extremely difficult once they knew what pass will actually be signed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

It’s not a guarantee but one thing to keep in mind when talking about the SCOTUS is that lifetime appointments make appointing anyone to the court a diceroll.  Harry Blackmun (one of the most liberal justices in recent history) was appointed by Richard Nixon.  David Souter (not a conservative by any stripe) was appointed by George H. W. Bush.  Roberts voted to uphold the ACA in its big test before the SCOTUS.  

Once the Justice is on the Court lifetime appointments give them a huge degree of intellectual freedom.  Trump gets to pick, the Senate gets to approve, but once there the person in that seat gets to vote on cases without anyone’s supervision, for a reason.

[butterbumps!]

7 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It’s not a guarantee but one thing to keep in mind when talking about the SCOTUS is that lifetime appointments make appointing anyone to the court a diceroll.  Harry Blackmun (one of the most liberal justices in recent history) was appointed by Richard Nixon.  David Souter (not a conservative by any stripe) was appointed by George H. W. Bush.  Roberts voted to uphold the ACA in its big test before the SCOTUS.  

Once the Justice is on the Court lifetime appointments give them a huge degree of intellectual freedom.  Trump gets to pick, the Senate gets to approve, but once there the person in that seat gets to vote on cases without anyone’s supervision, for a reason.

Is it the fact that they are lifetime appointments or the fact that they're not subject to elections that render them dicerolls free from "supervision?"  Would it produce the same effect if, say, court appointments had maximum lengths of 10-16 years?

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It’s not a guarantee but one thing to keep in mind when talking about the SCOTUS is that lifetime appointments make appointing anyone to the court a diceroll.  Harry Blackmun (one of the most liberal justices in recent history) was appointed by Richard Nixon.  David Souter (not a conservative by any stripe) was appointed by George H. W. Bush.  Roberts voted to uphold the ACA in its big test before the SCOTUS.  

Once the Justice is on the Court lifetime appointments give them a huge degree of intellectual freedom.  Trump gets to pick, the Senate gets to approve, but once there the person in that seat gets to vote on cases without anyone’s supervision, for a reason.

I have some problems with those examples.

Nixon wouldn't even be considered a Conservative today, George HW Bush was a bipartisan Republican and the John Roberts pick was criticized by many conservatives who didn't like that he didn't have a clear Textualist or Originalist philosophy.

If Trump gets another pick, the court will swing even further right.

[LongRider]

What did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez do that was most important for her win?  She got out the vote.  She got people to vote who hadn't voted in midterms or who believed their vote wouldn't matter.  In 2012 when I volunteered for the local branch of the Obama campaign, they did the same.  We walked working class and poor neighborhoods while the Romney people didn't.  Getting out the vote matters, just ask Clinton and Crowley.  A candidate ignores voters at their (and our) peril.

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1011776142616006662

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

46 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Is it the fact that they are lifetime appointments or the fact that they're not subject to elections that render them dicerolls free from "supervision?"  Would it produce the same effect if, say, court appointments had maximum lengths of 10-16 years?

I depends on whether or not those Justices may be reappointed after their terms expire.  If yes then reappointment will affect their rulings.  If not, who knows.

[Holy Sith!]

48 minutes ago, LongRider said:

What did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez do that was most important for her win?  She got out the vote.  She got people to vote who hadn't voted in midterms or who believed their vote wouldn't matter.  In 2012 when I volunteered for the local branch of the Obama campaign, they did the same.  We walked working class and poor neighborhoods while the Romney people didn't.  Getting out the vote matters, just ask Clinton and Crowley.  A candidate ignores voters at their (and our) peril.

https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1011776142616006662

In a week as politically bleak as this, hope for those of us who want to see our nation fulfill its potential to be a force for good took a real beating.

I remain encouraged by those who refuse to pronounce hope dead. The possibility of regaining control of Congress via the midterm elections is keeping hope alive for me. I hope to see candidates like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez replicated hundreds of times, driving out the ethically bankrupt, do-nothing incumbents of both parties.

I also hope for a scathing report from Mueller. It’s too much to expect that Donald will be impeached as a result, but I do hope that the conclusions will finally convince some of his supporters to come to their senses.

Americans still have the power to change their fate by going to the polls. We must use it.

[karaddin]

I get the general point on SCOTUS justices being a dice roll, but what's the most consistent constant in Trump's approach? I'd say it's the graft - he's corrupt as fuck and in it for him.

The new pick will be very conservative yes, but I also suspect it will be someone beholden to him personally in some way (even if it's not public).

[Fragile Bird]

You guys were talking about Trump blinking on China trade in the last thread. In Canada we are expecting nastiness being unleashed on us, cuz, you know, we’re not important like China.

Right now Trump forces are running a propaganda machine churning out False News against Canada. There are memes going around describing how unfair Canada is to the US, with a chart claiming  Canada charges 45% tariffs on aluminum, HVAC equipment and televisions, 35% on vacuums and cable boxes, 25% on on cars and steel and 48% on copper. The highest tariff the US charges, the chart claims, is 5%.

In fact, all of the items cross our borders duty-free under NAFTA.

Should you see this meme pop up on your Facebook page, do us all a favor and and point that out, will you?

And report the post as fake news!

[JGP]

1 hour ago, LongRider said:

What did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez do that was most important for her win?  She got out the vote.  She got people to vote who hadn't voted in midterms or who believed their vote wouldn't matter.  In 2012 when I volunteered for the local branch of the Obama campaign, they did the same.  We walked working class and poor neighborhoods while the Romney people didn't.  Getting out the vote matters, just ask Clinton and Crowley.  A candidate ignores voters at their (and our) peril.

I agree that ignoring voters is unwise. And, I don't want to take anything away from Ocasio-Cortez's win [a highpoint lately, for sure] but she managed to bring out the voters [available] to her only. To even say that overall turnout in that particular race was abysmal is an understatment. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

7 hours ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

To what point and purpose do you burden these poor souls? What exactly would taking back the House accomplish? Or even the Senate? And Trump is already spinning his web to draw out the pig fuckers for the midterms. Any advantage Dem's might have hoped for is as dead as Union financial prospects.

The country is broken, let it go.

There are also numerous state legislatures and governorships that are up for grabs, and based on the example of California/New York can take numerous actions that can be a check on Trump. And more importantly, be at the forefront of environmentalism (i.e enforce state standards that go beyond what federal standards demand).

We've talked about this in the past, getting back at least one chamber is critical, but apart from that 50/50 shot there are other checks and balances that are within grasp.

[TheKitttenGuard]

17 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

You guys were talking about Trump blinking on China trade in the last thread. In Canada we are expecting nastiness being unleashed on us, cuz, you know, we’re not important like China.

Right now Trump forces are running a propaganda machine churning out False News against Canada. There are memes going around describing how unfair Canada is to the US, with a chart claiming  Canada charges 45% tariffs on aluminum, HVAC equipment and televisions, 35% on vacuums and cable boxes, 25% on on cars and steel and 48% on copper. The highest tariff the US charges, the chart claims, is 5%.

In fact, all of the items cross our borders duty-free under NAFTA.

Should you see this meme pop up on your Facebook page, do us all a favor and and point that out, will you?

And report the post as fake news!

It is very strange that Canadian Bacon, an early '90s satire directed by Michael Moore (his only non-documentary film), is now a thing.

[JGP]

32 minutes ago, Casablanca Birdie said:

You guys were talking about Trump blinking on China trade in the last thread. In Canada we are expecting nastiness being unleashed on us, cuz, you know, we’re not important like China.

Right now Trump forces are running a propaganda machine churning out False News against Canada. There are memes going around describing how unfair Canada is to the US, with a chart claiming  Canada charges 45% tariffs on aluminum, HVAC equipment and televisions, 35% on vacuums and cable boxes, 25% on on cars and steel and 48% on copper. The highest tariff the US charges, the chart claims, is 5%.

In fact, all of the items cross our borders duty-free under NAFTA.

Should you see this meme pop up on your Facebook page, do us all a favor and and point that out, will you?

And report the post as fake news!

This is all true.

And while I understand your frustration or irritation or whatever, Kal, I'm not sure you get how many of us actually do have skin in the game. My concern for my American friends and fellow human beings in general down there has only grown. I mean, look. Canada more or less swept out our last conservative government like so much dirt. And while Trudeau has his flaws, imo he's generally been a good PM and is legislating and allocating resources toward a progressive agenda whose dividends will only increase down the road for all Canadians. Except... except. 

Well, except now of course, the conservative leadership here is trying to do the same thing Trump did. In the same ways. Less effectively, but they're doing it anyway and it is making an impact on the disenfranchised. As pointed out above by Bird, fake news and concern trolling is increasing here. Add to all that, for the short term at least our relationship with one of our biggest trade partners is well and truly fucked, and, while our economy is doing surprisingly well that will certainly change if the next few weeks don't lead to a walkback on all the tariff talk [for and against] So... what am I saying. I guess I'm saying.... Is that I'm not entirely sure how we, Canada, escape the same fate.

Dude, there are things about America that I HATE. If you've got a decent memory, you know this about me. But man, if you guys go down so are we [I can't express how much it galls me to say that]

We ALL got skin in this game. 

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

What's the overall value of a conservative court, anyway?  It just seems to be against the overwhelmingly vast majority's economic interests such that I'm unclear why it's such a strong rallying point for conservatives (especially with all that "economic anxiety" rationalization this past election).  I understand that they want bigoted policies and/ or are anti-choice, but I guess my question is whether they rally for the courts unaware of how bad it is for them economically, or in spite of it, because they just hate abortion and/ or civil rights that much?  Like it's worth it to them to get rid of abortion even if they lose their union benefits or consumer/ worker protections, or do they not understand that's what will happen?

Yes to all of the above.

You certainly can't say that all "conservatives" have the same ideas or the same understanding of the above. There are some who might change their minds if they understood the connection to worker protections. There are others who believe abortion is such a great evil that they think getting rid of it is worth any negative economic consequences for themselves. And of course there are many who think that any loss of "worker protection" won't affect them personally, but just the lazy welfare bums and immigrants.

[Ice Queen]

37 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I get the general point on SCOTUS justices being a dice roll, but what's the most consistent constant in Trump's approach? I'd say it's the graft - he's corrupt as fuck and in it for him.

The new pick will be very conservative yes, but I also suspect it will be someone beholden to him personally in some way (even if it's not public).

Jeff Sessions. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I get the general point on SCOTUS justices being a dice roll, but what's the most consistent constant in Trump's approach? I'd say it's the graft - he's corrupt as fuck and in it for him.

The new pick will be very conservative yes, but I also suspect it will be someone beholden to him personally in some way (even if it's not public).

I’ve heard that speculated upon and it gives me more pause than I’d like.  If he appoints someone with enough dirt to prompt impeachment if revealed he really might be able to maintain control of that Justice.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It’s not a guarantee but one thing to keep in mind when talking about the SCOTUS is that lifetime appointments make appointing anyone to the court a diceroll.  Harry Blackmun (one of the most liberal justices in recent history) was appointed by Richard Nixon.  David Souter (not a conservative by any stripe) was appointed by George H. W. Bush.  Roberts voted to uphold the ACA in its big test before the SCOTUS.  

Once the Justice is on the Court lifetime appointments give them a huge degree of intellectual freedom.  Trump gets to pick, the Senate gets to approve, but once there the person in that seat gets to vote on cases without anyone’s supervision, for a reason.

It is true that the GOP has frequently been bitten on justices since at least Earl Warren - and that many justices tend to verge more left over their tenure (while comparatively very few verge right).  But conservatives have course-corrected this to a significant extent over the past generation.  The names that Trump will be considering came of age when justices became more politicized (e.g. Ted Kennedy's turning "Bork" into a verb) and were virtually genetically engineered by the Federalist Society.  John Roberts may be slightly more "liberal" than the rest of the conservative block, but this is almost entirely a facet of his role as CJ.  He will protect the court if its legitimacy is threatened - which would have been the case if they overturned the ACA.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Man, looking at the responses from the last thread I can’t help but laugh. You guys proved my point. Quit freaking out like the world is ending because a 5-4 conservative court is going to be…….. a 5-4 conservative court. We don’t even know who the nominee is going to be, and we don’t know for sure that they’ll be confirmed. The constant outrage makes people numb to it, and those people will be less inclined to listen to you when the real trouble comes. Keep in mind, Kennedy sided with Trump on the travel ban. This dude is and always has been very conservative. It’s not like one of the liberals is going to be replaced, and Roberts will likely become the new “swing vote.” Keep in mind, he was the one who saved the ACA, not Kennedy.

@James Arryn

The time to freak out is when the push for voter suppression at the state level moves to the federal level with teeth. That's when people should be truly worried. And thankfully, the president's commission on voter fraud has been a disaster for him. 

[JGP]

9 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Man, looking at the responses from the last thread I can’t help but laugh. You guys proved my point. Quit freaking out like the world is ending because a 5-4 conservative court is going to be…….. a 5-4 conservative court. We don’t even know who the nominee is going to be, and we don’t know for sure that they’ll be confirmed. The constant outrage makes people numb to it, and those people will be less inclined to listen to you when the real trouble comes. Keep in mind, Kennedy sided with Trump on the travel ban. This dude is and always has been very conservative. It’s not like one of the liberals is going to be replaced, and Roberts will likely become the new “swing vote.” Keep in mind, he was the one who saved the ACA, not Kennedy.

@James Arryn

The time to freak out is when the push for voter suppression at the state level moves to the federal level with teeth. That's when people should be truly worried. And thankfully, the president's commission on voter fraud has been a disaster for him. 

Dude, is that all you got to say? If so, you should be more than a little ashamed to poke your head around here. That you're not speaks volumes.