US Politics: Make Thread Titles Great Again

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It seems like a good shot, but i wouldn't assume anything.  In addition, I'd give a generic republican (even one with virtually no name recognition) a better chance than Harris.  So him dropping out is probably good news for the GOP holding the seat. 

One thing McCready (the Dem that Harris ran against) has is a bunch of money in the bank, so there's at least one significant advantage.

[DMC]

Just now, Ormond said:

Is Pittenger not willing to run again?

He's already said he's not gonna (source).

[Jace, Extat]

5 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

One thing McCready (the Dem that Harris ran against) has is a bunch of money in the bank, so there's at least one significant advantage.

Yeah but now that the good people of North Carolina's 9th district know Dem O'crats tried to steal their election they'll mobilize to protect it.

[DanteGabriel]

34 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah but now that the good people of North Carolina's 9th district know Dem O'crats tried to steal their election they'll mobilize to protect it.

Listen Jace, you know I love you as only a halfway-done Patriots fan can love a Colts fan that once staged a defection to the Pats in order to run an elaborate jinx on them, but your nihilism can wear down even the most committed cynic. Since McCready already got roughly half the votes last time, maybe there are actually some fine people in NC 9.

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

but every once in a while I choose to post a few facts, 

A fact you posted. But, I'd hope you'd understand that you can't take that one fact and then make a general statement about the nature of things or the population as a whole. You took one fact and then made a very bad inductive error. 

If you have your old stats textbook laying around, now probably would be a good time to review it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

 

The Republicans aren't more likely to push it to the extremes, they are certainly going to continue to push it to the extremes - no likelihood about it.  This is the whole problem with your ham-fisted "don't wanna push it too far" strategy.  When the GOP was blocking Obama's appointees, there was a bunch of hand-wringing about eliminating the filibuster for lower court nominees.  It took nearly five years for Harry Reid to realize that McConnell was going to do the same thing once he got the chance anyway (i.e. next time there was a GOP Senate and president) and finally do it, and all that delay earned the Dems is only a year to enjoy its benefits.  

It's not ham-fisted to point out the obvious, which is there's a good chance the net outcome will be worse than if you did nothing. If you know the Republicans will push it further than you, why give them an excuse to do it? Idk if Reid knew that McConnell would have done the same, but what he should have known is that by doing so, he guaranteed that he would go even further. 

 

Quote

First of all, let's clarify that all this is almost certainly hypothetical.  Either party would not only need unified government, they'd probably need a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (there are arguments that you could use reconciliation or, more likely, other Senate rules to circumvent a cloture vote, but I don't want to get bogged down in that), and that's bloody unlikely for either party.  Second of all, there's absolutely no reason to say the Dems will "ultimately" lose - and not just because no one ultimately loses until climate change kills us all.  I don't know who will have the partisan advantage to exploit court packing "better" in the future and, news alert, you don't either.

If you're going to pack the courts, why not just nuke the filibuster all together while you're at it?

Quote

Third of all, I hate these types of objections, "you're an institutionalist, how could possibly want this done when it could destroy an institution?"  Because, yeah, I'm an institutionalist and I understand that's not what court packing would do.  There are rather compelling institutional design arguments for raising the number of SC justices to 27.  More importantly, this objection seems to be based on this absurd notion that we don't want to "politicize" the court too much.  The courts are a political institution filled with political actors.  This idea that justices decide "based on the law" instead of due to their political preferences is entirely imagined bullshit made up by lawyers because they think they're better than everybody.  And since it's a political institution, it's high time we recognized that nine justices is simply too small to be proper political representation of society in the first place.

The courts have been politicized for ages. The point is how much further do you want to take it? And I think the answer, or at least the outcome, is that Republicans will push it further. Given this likelihood, again, what's the point in gaining some short terms wins that won't mean anything the next time you're out of power?

Also, funny clip. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday again delayed the sentencing of Maria Butina, saying the Russian who pleaded guilty to secretly working with the Kremlin while making political overtures to the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups is still working with investigators.

During the public portion of a court hearing Tuesday in Washington, prosecutor Erik Kenerson was cryptic about the need for the delay, saying only, “the defendant’s cooperation is ongoing.”

 

Russian agent Butina still helping feds, has sentencing delayed
Butina pleaded guilty to secretly working with the Russian government while making political overtures to the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/26/russian-agent-sentencing-delayed-1189582

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I read this thread very frequently, and my recollection is that while all conservative posters are called trolls, very few if any were actually trolling.  I complain about discourse because it is literally not possible here.  In order to get into a substantive discussion about the idea of a culture where victimhood is the coin of the realm, and whether or why fake hate crimes are on the rise, it would start with whether or not the Southern Poverty Law Center is the same institution it was in the 60s and 70s, whether it deserves the same level of deference, whether it is still credible or not...but this is a discussion that can't be had here. So, there is no where to go with it.  

There are only a handful of consistent, long term conservative posters here, and the only one that gets labeled unfairly at times as a troll is Frog Eater, and that's because he can say some trolling things, even if it's not actually his attempt to troll. The rest are moderate lawyers who've moved to the center (and even center-left) over their years here. They're also people who know how to craft an argument and defend it well. Doesn't mean they're always right, but they credibility. None of them would come here and make a post like yours, and you even all but admitted it was done for the purposes of trolling. That's why people dog-piled on you.

The SPLC isn't perfect. I don't think anyone has argued that. But they are credible and do a lot of good work. And it's not just them who are conducting studies that are finding spikes in bigotry. The Anti-Defamation League does good work tracking anti-Semitism, and they are finding large increases. The ACLU does a lot of good work in these areas too, as do universities and other institutions interested in understanding these issues which can be difficult to study and discuss. Your need to focus on a minor blotch to justify an easy to detect bad argument isn't going to help.

Look, your initial post was to simply come in and say that another person faked a hate crime. That's not coming here to have a serious discussion. That's straight up trolling. You came here to kick a bee's nest. And now you're whining that people won't have an honest conversation. You want to know why conservatives catch a lot of L's here? It's because of that exact type of behavior. 

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Listen Jace, you know I love you as only a halfway-done Patriots fan can love a Colts fan that once staged a defection to the Pats in order to run an elaborate jinx on them, but your nihilism can wear down even the most committed cynic. Since McCready already got roughly half the votes last time, maybe there are actually some fine people in NC 9.

There are good people- very fine people- on both sides I'm sure.
 

I think of you with great affection, Mr. Gabriel. But once you just let it all in, and I mean ALL OF IT, things get better. It's hard, make no mistake. But ya just gotta throw open those sluice gates, blow the dykes, and smash the levies. You let in the horror and futility for a few hours and yeah, it's gonna feel like you're drowning. You'll probably consider literally drowning yourself. Maybe your whole extended family too. But once you wade through the miles of ever rushing madness there is higher ground to be had!

Imagine it like you're escaping Shawshank Correctional Facility via the same route Andy Dufresne. Just instead of a cleansing rain on the other side of 500 yards of human foulness there's nothing. A gaping, chasmic void which can't hurt you anymore. It's freeing.

 

[Martell Spy]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not ham-fisted to point out the obvious, which is there's a good chance the net outcome will be worse than if you did nothing. If you know the Republicans will push it further than you, why give them an excuse to do it? Idk if Reid knew that McConnell would have done the same, but what he should have known is that by doing so, he guaranteed that he would go even further. 

 

If you're going to pack the courts, why not just nuke the filibuster all together while you're at it?

The courts have been politicized for ages. The point is how much further do you want to take it? And I think the answer, or at least the outcome, is that Republicans will push it further. Given this likelihood, again, what's the point in gaining some short terms wins that won't mean anything the next time you're out of power?

Also, funny clip. 

 

Is there some Supreme Court ruling that would make in the future that would make you change your mind on court packing? Because we are arguing this without knowing what they might do. Would you tolerate any ruling, no matter how radical or cruel?

Also, you are somewhat being an optimist here. Court packing might lead to the break-up of our republic. It's definitely dangerous, but Roberts knows this as well and that is why it is important he feel the pressure. The best outcome would be if the SC moderates its rulings some and court packing is not needed. 

[Martell Spy]

'People want to work for what they get': Ivanka rejects Green New Deal's guaranteed jobs

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/02/26/ivanka-trump-rejects-green-new-deal-idea-of-guaranteed-employment/2991691002/

Quote

 

Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, specifically has a problem with the proposed environmental initiative's call for the federal government to guarantee a job for all Americans. 

"I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something," Trump said in an excerpt from an interview on Fox News' "The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton." The full interview is scheduled to air on Sunday. 

"I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get," Trump said when asked about the proposed progressive guarantee. 

 

 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not ham-fisted to point out the obvious, which is there's a good chance the net outcome will be worse than if you did nothing.

But that isn't the range of outcomes.  The range of outcomes is either allow the other side to continue to push things further and do nothing in response, or respond by doing the same things when they can benefit you.  The later is necessarily going to give you a net benefit in the long run as opposed to doing nothing.

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you know the Republicans will push it further than you, why give them an excuse to do it?

There is no logic to this.  If you know your opponent is going to continue to use escalating tactics, why wouldn't you use escalating tactics when they benefit you?

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk if Reid knew that McConnell would have done the same

He did, and there where plenty of people telling him McConnell would for years.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you're going to pack the courts, why not just nuke the filibuster all together while you're at it?

Because they are two fundamentally things.  Politicizing the courts (further) is something that should happen, abolishing the filibuster fundamentally changes the Senate.  It makes it identical to the House just smaller and with different modes of representation.  Changing the composition of the courts doesn't impact the nature/structure of the Senate at all.

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I think the answer, or at least the outcome, is that Republicans will push it further. Given this likelihood, again, what's the point in gaining some short terms wins that won't mean anything the next time you're out of power?

Again, what's the point in not gaining some short-term benefits (and they most likely wouldn't be that "short-term" btw) if refraining from doing so is not going to affect the GOP's behavior?  There's literally no discernible benefit to doing nothing under those conditions.  If you think refraining from doing so will somehow curb the GOP's behavior and continuing escalation in any way, well then I think that's just naive and we have nothing to argue about.

11 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Is there some Supreme Court ruling that would make in the future that would make you change your mind on court packing? Because we are arguing this without knowing what they might do. Would you tolerate any ruling, no matter how radical or cruel?

The Supreme Court can't do anything about "court packing."  Congress explicitly has the power to change the court size and they've done it plenty of times (albeit not since 1869).  The only that Congress can't do is kick off current members, most judges would probably agree that violates the "good behavior" clause.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

'People want to work for what they get': Ivanka rejects Green New Deal's guaranteed jobs

Saw that and definitely not trying to defend Ivanka, but it was in response to a totally leading question by the interviewer:

Quote

“You’ve got people who will see that offer from the Democrats, from the progressive Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Here’s the Green New Deal, here’s the guarantee of a job,’ and think, ‘yeah, that’s what I want, it’s that simple.’ What do you say to those people?” Hilton asked Ivanka Trump in the interview set to air in full on Sunday.

 

[Gertrude]

Yeah, there was no good way to answer, but god, it's galling coming from her.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

But that isn't the range of outcomes.  The range of outcomes is either allow the other side to continue to push things further and do nothing in response, or respond by doing the same things when they can benefit you.  The later is necessarily going to give you a net benefit in the long run as opposed to doing nothing.

There is no logic to this.  If you know your opponent is going to continue to use escalating tactics, why wouldn't you use escalating tactics when they benefit you?

He did, and there where plenty of people telling him McConnell would for years.

Because they are two fundamentally things.  Politicizing the courts (further) is something that should happen, abolishing the filibuster fundamentally changes the Senate.  It makes it identical to the House just smaller and with different modes of representation.  Changing the composition of the courts doesn't impact the nature/structure of the Senate at all.

Again, what's the point in not gaining some short-term benefits (and they most likely wouldn't be that "short-term" btw) if refraining from doing so is not going to affect the GOP's behavior?  There's literally no discernible benefit to doing nothing under those conditions.  If you think refraining from doing so will somehow curb the GOP's behavior and continuing escalation in any way, well then I think that's just naive and we have nothing to argue about.

The Supreme Court can't do anything about "court packing."  Congress explicitly has the power to change the court size and they've done it plenty of times (albeit not since 1869).  The only that Congress can't do is kick off current members, most judges would probably agree that violates the "good behavior" clause.

Yeah, I was asking him if there is any future SC ruling that would turn him into a court packing proponent. Does he have any limit?

[DMC]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

Yeah, I was asking him if there is any future SC ruling that would turn him into a court packing proponent. Does he have any limit?

Ah, sorry I misunderstood.

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, Ice Queen said:

Oh please. I didn't say kill people, I said treat them as subhuman.

That's how it starts -- and there are enough people who have studied history to know how it ends that once you begin walking down that road, the choice won't be yours anymore.

5 hours ago, Week said:

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/02/26/unreported-hate-crimes-not-hoaxes-are-real-cause-concern

Nice try, but I don't think this will do. It's not a bad strategy and it worked brilliantly for Democrats in the past, but it requires people to disregard a nationally publicized investigation and a multitude of other publicized stories and trust studies by experts who say that these are exceptions rather than the rule. The problem with it is that it requires some measure of faith in the experts -- and while you might get it from most people in this thread and from the rest of the people who already agree with you, such faith is in short supply among everyone else.

[Darth Richard II]

The fuck, did you just say hate crimes aren't real?

[lokisnow]

6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

The fuck, did you just say hate crimes aren't real?

Nah he said that one false positive proves all cancer diagnoses are also false.

and  he said that cancer diagnosis is racist against white people.

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Nah he said that one false positive proves all cancer diagnoses are also false.

and  he said that cancer diagnosis is racist against white people.

Ah OK. That's fine then!

If you need me I'll be in a dark room crying for the fate of humanity.