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

[DMC]

Just now, كالدب said:

wait til football season starts and you're both drunk

I think it's worse when she's high and I'm drunk - not on the same wavelength and I have no patience.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, DMBouazizi said:

You're so confusing sometimes.

Always. This is the game, DM.

 

[DanteGabriel]

Jesus, please stop with the attempted heretic-burning among liberals. I disagree with Tywin (or chiKanery, fucking World Cup) and think he's too complacent and Schumery myself, but there's no need to get this fucking nasty with him. And his suggestion to flood the Republican Senators with calls was legit. It likely won't change anything, but at least you'd be yelling at the right people.

I'll make no comment on Jace and her nihilistic mating rituals, though.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 hours ago, Relic said:

Sure, i agree, but still...

 

VOTE. FUCKING VOTE AND GET OTHERS TO VOTE. Or stop posting about politics. 

We don't know what will happen between now and the court nominee approval-sure-to-be-a-fiasco. We've seen some strange things in the Senate (healthcare and tax reform not going through as planned). The votes needed to get the appointment are tight, and all it takes is two (?) defectors. So, I'm with you, don't give up now. Vote now. Plus Ginsberg has to be on her way out, and you can't allow a third seat to be taken up for decades. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but it's possible, very possible, that sometimes these judges sit down and convince each other of things. I know, I know. Probably not. But either way, while Kennedy is devastating news, we can't give up now. 

 

Edit: Just on a side note, I like that Chuck Schumer is citing the McConnell rule, but am I the only one who feels like democratic leadership has been mostly invisible for two years? When someone comes out with a strong message, leadership tells them to scale it back. What is the party even about right now? I feel like they've let Trump and the republicans suck all the air out of the room. If Dems win both the house and the senate, then they need to step up big. Supreme court nominees? "The voters should decide now that the President is under investigation for collusion." Just start throwing wrenches in the gears. Hell, impeachment proceedings better be underway if Dems win both. Then, the answer can be, "No Supreme Court nominees can be picked by impeached Presidents." And if the ultimate craziness happens and Pence is sworn in? "The voters need to decide with a real President, not second place guy."

Just obstruct. It works great. We see it working great. Just obstruct!

[Martell Spy]

23 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

Don't forget Trump calling the media the enemy of the American people.

That was my first thought on hearing about this. No word what the motive was yet.

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, chiKanery et al. said:

It's not as bad as you make it out to be. As was pointed out, Kennedy's swing vote label is more narrative than reality. He was really only good for a random vote on a social issue here and there.

Tywin, sorry for jumping in here. I'm mostly a lurker, so you probably have no idea who the hell I am, but I follow the U.S. politics thread carefully and I find myself in agreement with you about 99% of the time, if not more. I don't think too many posters will disagree with the above part of your quote. 

Quote

His loss will be bad for women, minorities and the poor, but it's not the end of the Republic.

THIS is the part that comes across as tone-deaf, and I don't think your doubling down on it (or trying to downplay it) is helpful. Women constitute what, a shade over half of the U.S. population? Racial and gender minorities perhaps around 20-ish percent? The poor (depending on your definition) at least another 15 percent or so? That adds up to a significant majority of the U.S. population (by your own admission) being adversely affected by this event, on top of all the other horrible stuff they already had to put up with. So can you perhaps understand that a white man saying "it's not the end of the Republic" may come across as just a tad insensitive? 

Imagine if someone in Germany in 1935, after the passing of the Nuremberg laws, said "it will be bad for the Jews, but it's not the end of the (Weimar) Republic"? Given that the average German at the time could not possibly have foreseen the Final Solution, such a comment could very well have been seen as a harsh but fair assessment of the situation. But with the benefit of hindsight, those jewish people who didn't stay calm but rather saw the writing on the wall ended up being correct in the end, wouldn't you agree?

Look, I completely understand the impulse to convince yourself that things aren't as bad as they seem. Everyone has their own coping mechanism, and if this works for you, then great. But can you perhaps understand why telling the non-white male population of the U.S. (as a white man) to calm down (while acknowledging the suckiness of their situation) is bound to ruffle feathers?

 

[DMC]

So Lee Drutman wrote a piece yesterday advocating term limits for SCOTUS justices.  This has always been the most sensible solution that would seem to be realistic for each party to compromise.  My suggestion would by 16-year terms staggered every 4 years - start with 3 appointed, then 2,2,2 if you want to keep nine justices.  What I did not know was how popular it is:

Quote

The public largely agrees on the value of term limits for Supreme Court justices. A Reuters polllast year found widespread support for term limits. Sixty-six percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans wanted 10-year terms for justices, and 80 percent of those identified with the Tea Party–supported term limits.

Two blatant pragmatic problems.  First, it's likely unconstitutional based on Article III, Section 1 which states justices shall serve during "good behaviour."  That's generally understood as lifetime other than impeachment, and certainly would be how a sitting SCOTUS would interpret.  The proposed circumvention of an amendment is:

Quote

A more likely way to accomplish this was suggested by Robert Bauer in 2005: that the president agree not to nominate anybody who wouldn’t agree to serve a limited term and the Senate agree not to confirm who doesn’t agree to serve a limited term. As Bauer wrote:

The president could announce such a commitment when he introduces the candidate to the media. The Senate Judiciary Committee could ask the nominee about his views on longevity and also seek a commitment, even to a range of years. Any justice who hopes that with the passage of time such an exchange would be forgotten would likely be disappointed. Over time, a custom or expectation would develop. No law would be necessary to assure that justices act in the socially accepted fashion, just as no president served more than two terms for almost 150 years after Washington.

The second problem is what to do with the sitting justices.  Age limits?  Nothing?  No matter what, this is where you would be guaranteed to get partisan intransigence, and why it will never happen.  Still, thought it should be mentioned.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Jesus, please stop with the attempted heretic-burning among liberals. I disagree with Tywin (or chiKanery, fucking World Cup) and think he's too complacent and Schumery myself, but there's no need to get this fucking nasty with him. And his suggestion to flood the Republican Senators with calls was legit. It likely won't change anything, but at least you'd be yelling at the right people.

I'll make no comment on Jace and her nihilistic mating rituals, though.

One could almost say we should be more civil 

And I take offense to being compared to Schumer. I never liked the guy, and he's every bit as slimy in real life as he is on T.V. I think I'm more like a Cory Booker. Project idealism, practice pragmatism, can get along with the other side, overtly ambitious, likely secretly corrupt. Yeah, that's my guy!

Also, to our previous convo which I never got back to you about, yes you have mentioned Reagan's favorite dictator several times, and I think one time it was in the context of a Central American dictator so my guess is that I just assumed that's what you were referencing with your family. I honestly don't know much about the Philippines outside of the fact that a brutal dictator is running it now, Pac-Man is from there and some how he's a politician.  

Also also, I'm sorry to hear what your family had to endure. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

And I take offense to being compared to Schumer. I never liked the guy, and he's every bit as slimy in real life as he is on T.V.

I've met Schumer multiple times and I very much disagree.  Talk about lack of civility..

[Martell Spy]

Deadweight Donald

Polls show the president is an albatross on his party heading into November.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/polls-show-donald-trump-is-an-albatross-on-his-party-heading-into-november.html

Quote

On the poll’s congressional ballot question—“Which party’s candidate are you more likely to vote for in your congressional district?”—the GOP trails by just six points, 45 percent to 39 percent. But when the question is framed around Trump—“Do you want to elect a Congress that mostly cooperates with President Trump, or one that mostly stands up to President Trump?”—the gap more than triples. Fifty-five percent of voters choose a Congress that stands up to Trump. Only 34 percent choose a Congress that cooperates with Trump. A six-point deficit becomes a 21-point deficit.

 

[Rippounet]

Brand new study has me worried:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/06/21/princeton-economists-find-unions-had-historical-role-helping-address-income

Quote

 

Princeton economists find that unions had historical role in helping address income inequality

The rise in income inequality between skilled and unskilled workers since the 1970s might be due, at least in part, to a decline in union membership, Princeton University researchers have found.

 

What has me worried is that this was always fairly obvious to me. I'm a bit surprised that there was a need for an official study to demonstrate that. Or that such a study was only done in 2018. It has me worried because since I write stuff too, perhaps there are other things I see as obvious... that aren't?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What has me worried is that this was always fairly obvious to me. I'm a bit surprised that there was a need for an official study to demonstrate that. Or that such a study was only done in 2018. It has me worried because since I write stuff too, perhaps there are other things I see as obvious... that aren't?

I agree it's obvious, but I don't think it should make you worry too much.  Pretty sure it's at least a decent chunk of McPoolThal's (2008) Polarized America.

[JGP]

30 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Jesus, please stop with the attempted heretic-burning among liberals. I disagree with Tywin (or chiKanery, fucking World Cup) and think he's too complacent and Schumery myself, but there's no need to get this fucking nasty with him. And his suggestion to flood the Republican Senators with calls was legit. It likely won't change anything, but at least you'd be yelling at the right people.

Hard pass.

 

[Martell Spy]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Brand new study has me worried:

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2018/06/21/princeton-economists-find-unions-had-historical-role-helping-address-income

What has me worried is that this was always fairly obvious to me. I'm a bit surprised that there was a need for an official study to demonstrate that. Or that such a study was only done in 2018. It has me worried because since I write stuff too, perhaps there are other things I see as obvious... that aren't?

American conservatives are often fed propaganda about unions being terrible for workers and believe it.

There are often studies with conclusions that are obvious to liberals.

[mcbigski]

30 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

That was my first thought on hearing about this. No word what the motive was yet.

I'd bet against.  We re in the middle of a great news cycle for the Trump side.  Hardly the time to despair and lash out.

[DanteGabriel]

16 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

One could almost say we should be more civil 

Civility between liberals on a message board, yes. With Nazis, no.

 

16 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Also, to our previous convo which I never got back to you about, yes you have mentioned Reagan's favorite dictator several times, and I think one time it was in the context of a Central American dictator so my guess is that I just assumed that's what you were referencing with your family. I honestly don't know much about the Philippines outside of the fact that a brutal dictator is running it now, Pac-Man is from there and some how he's a politician.  

Also also, I'm sorry to hear what your family had to endure. 

Suffice it to say that a popularly elected dimwit with a forged military heroism record got himself elected President of a previously peacefully and mostly okay little Third World republic, and used a Communist insurrection in the southern provinces (which had been in a state of a Muslim insurrection since the Spanish imperial days) to suspend civil rights, declare Martial Law, pillage the economy for personal enrichment, and murder critics and dissidents. With the connivance of the US government, especially warmly embraced by Ronald Reagan. Something like a year after a returning opposition leader was murdered in broad daylight as he literally stepped off the plane.

I also invite you to review the Twitter thread copied and pasted by Bonnot OG here: 

And wonder how far along we are in this playbook. I do think you're a little complacent about "end of the Republic" because the Republicans are definitely consolidating power, and unlikely to surrender it again.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

I'd bet against.  We re in the middle of a great news cycle for the Trump side.  Hardly the time to despair and lash out.

A lot of times when things are going well, people act with more daring for their side. Despair is probably not the emotion I'd describe.

[JGP]

Kennedy had picked his clerks for next year? Imma do some digging, but anyone know if that's true?

[Martell Spy]

Chuck Schumer Is Secretly Sabotaging the Next Democratic President

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/schumer-is-secretly-sabotaging-the-next-democratic-president.html

Quote

“According to a senior GOP senator who spoke on condition of anonymity,” reports Politico, “Schumer has privately reassured Republican senators in recent weeks that he would not change the rules and is committed to keeping the filibuster.” What this means is that the decision to bottle up the agenda of the next Democratic president is being made right now, in private, in a secret deal between Schumer and Senate Republicans.

 

[Bonnot OG]

5 jouranlists dead, and 2 days ago this neo nazi pedophilia apologist self loathing homophobic sack of fucking shit was calling on death squads to kill jouranlists.

Stop giving motherfuckers like this a platform. Facebook won't, but should absolutely ban him from there.
http://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yiannopoulos-encourages-vigilantes-start-gunning-journalists-down/